/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220518.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 93 Headlines A & B FULTON: Hasangjakaj Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages AHRC HEALTH: Onate Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification ALLERGAN INC: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to July 11 AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Faces Bruce Suit Over Lost Water Service APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Defend $80M Legal Fees in iPhone Class Suit ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Suit Alleges False Advertising in Fruit Snacks ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Shareholder Suit in MD Court Ongoing ARQIT QUANTUM: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline BANK OF NEW YORK: Butterline Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot BANTER BY PIERCING: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Alfaro Suit BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Appeals Judgment Reconsideration Bid Denial BB'S TEX-ORLEANS: Hall Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages BELLE TIRE: Underpays Alignment Technicians, Pope Suit Says BENNY SKINNER: Hudson Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime BETMGM LLC: Faces Fischler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BINANCE: Anderson Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal BIOMAT USA: Illinois Court Dismisses Vaughan's Amended Complaint BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 16 BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of RCMP Facial Recognition Class Action CARE AT HOME: Faces Nqadolo Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Wages CENTRUS ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in McGlone Class Suit CFG HEALTH: Former Employee Files Hour and Wage Class Action CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over GYEN Token Trading COLUMBIA GRAMMAR: Denial of C.H.'s Class Certification Bid Upheld CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to File Certification Reply CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Has Until May 27 to File Reply CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Bosch Suit Over Share Price Drop CREDIT SUISSE: Sued for Financing Yachts of Sanctioned Persons DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Mull Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Products FARMERS INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Seeks to File Class Reply Under Seal FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bloom, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by July 7 FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid to Strike Hinds' PAGA Claim FINEJEWELERS.COM: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Rosen Law Reminds of July 11 Deadline FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement in Noll Suit Wins Final Nod FOSTER FIRM: Marchan-Davila Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages FREUD AMERICA: Tuter Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. GENUINE PARTS: Yoakum, et al Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses GOOGLE LLC: Court Stays Discovery in California Crane Class Suit GOOGLE LLC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Pimentel's Bid for Discovery Responses Denied GRAND CANYON: Carson Little Seeks Approval of Class Notice GYMNASTICS CANADA: Abuse Allegations Described in Class-Action Suit GYMNASTICS CANADA: Former B.C. Gymnast Lead Plaintiff in Abuse Suit HANNAFORD BROS: Underpays Bakery Managers, Prinzo Suit Says HARTFORD HEALTH: Consumers' Health Insurance Class Action Pending HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Houseman Appeals Class Suit Ruling HERITAGE GP: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Velez Suit Says HILCORP ENERGY: Carl Appeals Dismissal of Gas Royalties' Suit HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Discloses Settlement Home Class Action Lawsuit HOMEDELIVERYLINK INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Kloppel Suit INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 24 Deadline IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal IRONNET INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 21 Deadline JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bids to Quash Subpoenas in Hall Suit Granted KIEWIT CORP: Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Avila Suit KROGER CO: Court Refuses to Strike Class Allegations in Womick Suit LAKEVIEW LOAN: Riley Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Florida LYFT INC: Bid for Class Certification Discovery Granted in Part M.U. CONSULTANTS: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation MANYMAR CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mendoza Says MASSACHUSETTS: Settles Suit Over COVID Outbreak in Care Facility MDL 24009: FCA Seeks Oral Argument on Class Certification Bid MDL 2879: Classes Certified in Consumer Data Security Breach Suit MICHAELS STORES: Lizama Suit Remanded to St. Louis Circuit Court MYOSTORM LLC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Paguada Suit NEW DAIRYDEL: Aguilar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York NORTH DAKOTA: Water Protectors Appeals Class Action Ruling OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Renewed Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd OLIN CORPORATION: Miami Products Seeks to Certify Class ON POINT: Michael Kapinos Files Bid for Class Certification OSCAR HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit PEOPLECONNECT INC: Loses Bid to Arbitrate or Toss La Fronza Suit PHLAVZ BAR: Perry-Farr Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages POLARIS INC: Faces Consumer Suits in California Court REMO INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Schedule SIERRA TUCSON: Knight Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages SINERGIA INC: Fails to Provider Proper Wages, Sarr Suit Says SNAP INC: Violates Consumers' Biometric Privacy, Class Suit Says SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Faces Perez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SUPER73 INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wins Judgment in Burnell and Rudsell Suits T&G SPORTS: Faces Abreu Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOEZPECUNIA INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Sharing TUG HILL: Rogers Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. U.S. POSTAL: Shrestha Sues Over Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract UMG RECORDINGS: Marks Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Massaquoi Appeals Dismissal of Property Damage Suit VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit for Misleading 2019 Prospectus VOLT MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Suit Submitted to Binding Arbitration WALGREEN PHARMACY: Lemons Appeals Claim Dismissal Ruling WALMART INC: Moorhead Sues for Retaliation, Discrimination WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Retro Game Market Manipulation WELLS FARGO: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Hobbs Says WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Suit Moved to California Super. Court WOODSTREAM CORP: Painter Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial ********* A & B FULTON: Hasangjakaj Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Gzim Hasangjakaj, Granit Hasangjakaj, and Gentrid Hasangjakaj, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiffs v. A & B Fulton Corp., Dema Balidemic (a/k/a Dema Balidemaj), Julia Balidemic (a/k/a Julia Balidemaj), and Amy Balidemic (a/k/a Amy Balidemaj), Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02495 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiffs seeking recovery, for themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and recovery of unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Gzim Hasangjakaj and Granit Hasangjakaj were employed by the Defendants as servers and bartenders. Plaintiff Gentrid was employed as a busboy and food runner. A & B Fulton Corp. operates a restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com AHRC HEALTH: Onate Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO ONATE, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHRC HEALTH CARE, INC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-LGS-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally permitting them to proceed as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of: "all current former non-exempt hourly employees and non- exempt salaried employees who were employed by Defendant AHRC Health on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint;" 2. compelling Defendant to furnish the names, last known physical addresses, last known email addresses and last known telephone numbers of those individuals in the collective action; 3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to circulate a Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form to all individuals who are similarly situated in this action; and 4. together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. AHRC New York City is an organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in New York City. The initialism AHRC once stood for Association for the Help of Retarded Children. While the name is no longer used, the organization retained its four letters. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3stqCgM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. Luis Munoz, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com lmunoz@mclaughlinstern.com The Defendant is represented by: Arthur J. Robb, Esq. CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, suite 6110 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 687-7410 E-mail: ajrobb@abdm.com ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Casa Libre Freedom House, et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order striking motion for class certification and setting parameters for re-filing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Class, setting a hearing for May 23, 2022. The Plaintiffs violated Central District Local Rule 7-3 by failing to include a statement confirming that the Plaintiffs' counsel met and conferred with counsel for the Government before proceeding to file the Motion. The Plaintiffs' Motion is accordingly stricken. The Court additionally entered an order as follows. The Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion at least 35 days before their selected hearing date. The Plaintiffs shall include with their renewed motion a detailed, fact-specific declaration of counsel describing counsel's efforts to comply with Local Rule 7-3. Finally, and in anticipation of a renewed motion, the Court makes one observation. Class certification is appropriate only if the parties demonstrate each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4iqKA at no extra charge.[CC] ALLERGAN INC: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY WEISBEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, INC., a Delaware corporation., Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that the deadlines to file the motions for class certification and summary judgment are extended by 45 days, to July 11, 2022 and August 11, 2022, respectively. Allergan was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38qusRc at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Faces Bruce Suit Over Lost Water Service -------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that it is facing an alleged class action filed by residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Chattanooga water leakage. On September 12, 2019, the company's Tennessee subsidiary Tennessee American Waterworks Company (TAWC), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned "Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al." was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs' claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been engaging in discovery. The court has entered an agreed scheduling order, which sets a hearing in October 2022 to address the question of class certification. American Water Works Company, Inc. is a traded water and wastewater utility company in New Jersey. APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Defend $80M Legal Fees in iPhone Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that a national plaintiffs' firm asked a U.S. appeals court in California to uphold a nearly $80 million legal-fee award that was part of a $310 million settlement resolving class claims over the performance of certain Apple Inc iPhones. In the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy spurned objectors' allegations that the attorneys' fee award, which was 26% of the settlement, was too high, depriving the class of tens of millions of dollars, and other claims over the settlement notice process. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, held two days of hearings and "did not rubber-stamp the settlement," Molumphy told Circuit Judges Jacqueline Nguyen, Ryan Nelson and John Owens. Davila weighed objections to the compensation award and to the settlement, one of the largest class resolutions in California, before approving them in March 2021, Molumphy said. The panel raised concerns at the hour-long argument about whether Davila used the wrong legal frame before approving the settlement. Nguyen questioned whether Davila wrongly approached reviewing the settlement under a "presumption" that it was reasonable. Nelson said to Molumphy: "It doesn't look to me like the district court engaged to the degree that we might expect the court to do on the substance of some of the arguments that were raised." Molumphy declined to comment. The settlement resolved multidistrict claims that Apple secretly diminished the performance of certain iPhone operating systems in order to minimize phones from shutting off unexpectedly. In settling the case, Apple said it had "agreed to put this matter behind it" but stood by what it called a performance management feature that "solved a complex technological problem." Apple's lawyer in the appeal, Chris Chorba, co-chair of Gibson Dunn's class actions practice group, deferred comment to Apple. A company representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment. "What does the panel want Judge Davila to do that he did not do?" Chorba said in court, defending the settlement. "Maybe set up-front the standard that he's actually applying," Nelson replied. The appeals court heard arguments from objectors including Ted Frank, director of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute for Class Action Fairness. His brief in the appeal argued that the percentage should not be greater than about 17%, which would return more than $35 million to the consumer class. The case is In re Apple Inc Device Performance Litigation, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-15758. For plaintiffs: Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy For Apple: Chris Chorba of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher [GN] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Suit Alleges False Advertising in Fruit Snacks ----------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that a California resident is suing Arizona Beverages, of Arizona Iced Tea fame, and its owner Hornell Brewing Co. for intentionally misleading customers into thinking the companies' fruit snack products are largely made with fruit when in fact they are not. Marcia Campbell says she and many consumers relied on Arizona's false advertising of its Arizona Green Tea Fruit Snacks and Arnold Palmer Half & Half Fruit Snacks that stated the snacks were "MADE WITH REAL FRUIT" and that "FRUIT IS OUR FIRST INGREDIENT." Arizona Fruit Snack Labels Misleading, Class Action Says Arizona's "deceptive marketing campaign" appeals to health-conscious consumers who would expect similar health benefits as fresh fruits because of its representations of fresh fruits and fruit ingredients, the class action says. Not only are the products' labels misleading but so are Arizonas' marketing and advertising materials. "The deception lies in the fact that the products are devoid of real fruit," the complaint states. "Rather than having healthful real fruit as its first ingredients, [Arizona's] first three ingredients are added sugars." The complaint includes pictures of the two products' ingredients lists, which names pear juice from fruit juice concentrate as the first and most prominent ingredient followed by glucose syrup and sugar. "Relying on [Arizona's] representations, consumers that seek healthier alternatives than mere candy only later realize that their purchase of [Arizona's] products was a fruitless endeavor," the class action states. Meanwhile, Arizona and Hornell Brewing have and continue to make "millions at the expense of the public health and trust," Campbell accuses. Campbell seeks to represent a nationwide class and California class that includes everyone who bought Arizona fruit snacks within the applicable statute of limitations period. Cambell seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement of Arizona's benefits, injunctive relief to stop Arizona's and Hornell Brewing's allegedly deceptive practices and attorneys' costs. Have you bought Arizona Beverages fruit snacks believing that they were made with real fruit? You could be a class member of this class action lawsuit![GN] ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Shareholder Suit in MD Court Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Armour Residential Reit, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that in March 1, 2022, a Maryland court deferred an Order of Dismissal until September 1, 2022 with regards to a consolidated amended class action complaint over breach of fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs. Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the company's tender offer and merger for JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the merger and JMI Acquisition Corporation as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders, ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest, failed to disclose material information about the Transactions, took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirers or alternative transactions and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017. On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned "In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation" (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. On August 16, 2021, the court ordered that the entry of an Order of Dismissal is further deferred until February 1, 2022. On March 1, 2022, the court deferred the Order of Dismissal until September 1, 2022 and if the case is not fully disposed of by that date, the clerk shall enter on the docket "dismissed for lack of prosecution without prejudice." Armour Residential Reit, Inc. is an investment advisor based in Florida. ARQIT QUANTUM: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. (NasdaqCM: ARQQ, ARQQW, CENH, CENHU, CENHW) if they purchased the Company's securities between September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or held Centricus securities as of August 31, 2021 and were eligible to vote at the special meeting on the merger between Arqit and Centricus. Shareholders have until July 5, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqcm-arqq/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Butterline Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BUTTERLINE, et al., v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01429-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered an order that: -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is dismissed as moot without prejudice; and -- the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is dismissed as moot without prejudice. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co NA is a full-service bank. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39eqefw at no extra charge.[CC] BANTER BY PIERCING: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Alfaro Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, SILVIA ALFARO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANTER BY PIERCING PAGODA; PIERCING PAGODA; ZALE DELAWARE, INC.; AMANDA HORN; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SACV 22-00266-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). I. Background Plaintiff Alfaro initially filed the putative class action against Defendants Zale Delaware, Inc., Banter by Piercing Pagoda, Piercing Pagoda, Amanda Horn, and unnamed does in Orange County Superior Court. She alleges that the Defendants violated several of California's labor laws and regulations. On Feb. 8, 2022, Defendant Zale removed the action to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act or "CAFA." It maintains that the amount in controversy in the action exceeds CAFA's threshold of $5 million. The Plaintiff now moves to remand the case, arguing that the Defendant has failed to show that the amount in controversy satisfies CAFA's threshold. II. Discussion The Defendant estimates that $873,100.34 is in controversy for the Plaintiff's failure to pay overtime wages claim. This estimate assumes that each employee in the putative class did not receive one hour of unpaid overtime per week during the class period. For the Plaintiff's failure to provide meal periods and failure to permit rest periods claims, the Defendant assumes two meal period violations and two rest break violations per work week, for a total of four violations per workweek per putative class member. The Defendant uses the average hourly rate of the putative class to calculate damages for these violations, estimating that a total of $2,328,720.72 is in controversy. For the Plaintiff's failure to reimburse business expenses claim, the Defendant assumes that 50% of an employee's weekly cell phone cost was not appropriately reimbursed, resulting in an amount in controversy of $424,485.14 across the class period. The Defendant also estimates that $322,200 is in controversy for the Plaintiff's failure to timely pay wages claim, assuming a 25% violation rate and using the statutory penalties of $100 for the first violation and $200 for the second violation as the measure of damages. For the Plaintiff's failure to timely pay wages due at termination claim, Defendant assumed a 100% violation rate and estimated that among the class members $1,385,474.40 is in controversy. The Defendant also assumed a 100% violation rate for the Plaintiff's failure to provide accurate wage statements, placing $743,400 in controversy across the class period. Finally, it estimates that the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees will amount to $1,519,345.15, or 25% of the total amount in controversy the Defendant estimates for the Plaintiff's wage and hour causes of action. These estimates total $7,596,725.75. The Defendant submitted a declaration from Reginald Johnson, Senior Vice President, North America Field Human Resources and Chief Diversity Officer for Defendant Zale. Mr. Johnson provided a detailed analysis of the Defendant's payroll records, the wages paid to putative class members, hours worked, and other information that Defendant used to make reasonable assumptions to calculate the amount in controversy. The Plaintiff's primary argument is that the case should be remanded because the Defendant has not submitted sufficient "summary-judgment type evidence" that the amount in controversy is met. Judge Carney concludes that the Defendant bases its amount in controversy on reasonable calculations supported by the Plaintiff's own complaint and a declaration from Mr. Johnson, who is uniquely situated to speak to the scope of Defendant's employment activities in California. The Plaintiff presents absolutely no evidence to rebut those calculations, nor does she persuasively assert that the Defendant was required to do more. Accordingly, the Defendant has satisfied its burden to invoke CAFA. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yznub54d from Leagle.com. BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Appeals Judgment Reconsideration Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Troy Fleming, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TROY FLEMING, JARROD NABOR, DAVARIAN URSIN, CHARLES ZIEGELER, and RONNIE MILLET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BAYOU STEEL BD HOLDINGS II, L.L.C. and BLACK DIAMOND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01476-CJB-KWR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act seeking recovery for Bayou Steel's former employees of damages in the amount of 60 days' back pay, ERISA benefits and other damages. On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs learned that they were to be terminated immediately, or had already been terminated, without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff or facility closing ordered by Bayou Steel Entities and the Defendants. Such termination violated the notice requirements of the WARN Act because the Defendants failed to give them at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, says the complaint. On February 23, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Bayou Steel BD Holdings II LLC, Black Diamond Capital Management L.L.C. against Plaintiffs Charles Ziegeler, Davarian Ursin, Jarrod Nabor, Ronnie Millet, Troy Fleming, dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint at their cost. On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the said Summary Judgment ruling which the court denied on April 20, 2022, through an Order signed by Judge Carl Barbier. The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review of this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Fleming v. Bayou Steel, Case No. 22-30260, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Troy Fleming, Jarrod Nabor, Davarian Ursin, Charles Ziegeler, and Ronnie Millet, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Jason W. Burge, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P. 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com Defendants-Appellees Bayou Steel BD Holdings II L.L.C. and Black Diamond Capital Management L.L.C. are represented by: Don S. McKinney, Esq. ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P. 701 Poydras Street Hancock Whitney Center New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 581-3234 E-mail: don.mckinney@arlaw.com BB'S TEX-ORLEANS: Hall Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKAH HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BB'S TEX-ORLEANS WEBSTER LLC D/B/A BB'S TEX-ORLEANS, BB'S TEX-ORLEANS MONTROSE, LLC D/B/A BB'S TEX-ORLEANS, BB'S NORTHPARK LLC D/B/A BB'S TEX-ORLEANS, BB'S SAN ANTONIO LLC D/B/A BB'S TEXORLEANS, and BB'S 249 LLC D/B/A BB'S TEX-ORLEANS, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00430 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendants' Kingwood, Texas BB's Tex-Orleans restaurant from February 26, 2022 through April 1, 2022. The Defendants operate a statewide chain of restaurants called BB's Tex-Orleans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net BELLE TIRE: Underpays Alignment Technicians, Pope Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON POPE and TERRELL HUNT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BELLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10922-TGB-JJCG (E.D. Mich., April 29, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Pope has worked for Defendant from September 11, 2015, to the present at Defendant's Store as an alignment technician. Mr. Hunt worked for Defendant from approximately November 2016 to approximately February 2020. Mr. Hunt was employed as an alignment technician from Spring/Summer 2018 to February 2020 at various stores located in Southeastern Michigan. Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. is an American tire, wheel and automotive service retailer headquartered in Allen Park, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. Frances J. Hollander, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com hollander@bwlawonline.com BENNY SKINNER: Hudson Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- KING HUDSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff v. BENNY SKINNER, individually, and BENNY SKINNER d/b/a ALL-STAR SECURITY SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00072-NBB-JMV (N.D. Miss., May 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation individually and as a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former security guards employed by Defendants during the last three years who were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff, King Hudson, is an individual domiciled in Memphis, Tennessee who worked for Defendants as a security guard from approximately September 2021 to April 2022. Benny Skinner, d/b/a All-Star Security Services, operates a security company that provides a full range of security guard services in Mississippi and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Dillard, Esq. JOEL DILLARD & ASSOCIATES 775 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 509-1372 Facsimile: (601) 509-1372 E-mail: joel.f.dillard@gmail.com BETMGM LLC: Faces Fischler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETMGM, LLC D/B/A BETMGM Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02503-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://sports.ny.betmgm.com/en/sports, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction for Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. BetMGM, LLC, d/b/a BetMGM, is a sports betting and gaming entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com BINANCE: Anderson Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs JD ANDERSON, et al., appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit entitled JD ANDERSON, COREY HARDIN, ERIC LEE, BRETT MESSIEH, DAVID MUHAMMAD, RANJITH THIAGARAJAN, CHASE WILLIAMS, and TOKEN FUND I LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BINANCE, CHANGPENG ZHAO, YI HE, and ROGER WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02803, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action, filed on April 3, 2020, is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated investors who purchased 12 digital tokens that Binance has sold through its online exchange since July 1, 2017, allege that the Defendants marketed the digital tokens to the public through an initial coin offering without registering as an exchange or brokerdealer and without filing registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as required under federal and state laws. On April 3, 2019, the SEC released a detailed framework to analyze digital assets where it clarified that the tokens are investment contracts and therefore securities under Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC determined Binance's digital tokens as unregistered securities on September 30, 2019, along with other digital tokens sold by other cryptocurrency exchange platforms. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members who purchased the tokens suffered significant losses and they seek to recover the consideration paid for the tokens with interest thereon at the legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase. On February 16, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint and/or compel arbitration which the Court granted on March 31, 2022 through an Opinion and Order entered by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. A Clerk's Judgment followed confirming that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs now seeks a review of the case dismissal order. The appellate case is captioned as Anderson et al. v. Binance et al., Case No. 22-972, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JD ANDERSON, COREY HARDIN, ERIC LEE, BRETT MESSIEH, DAVID MUHAMMAD, RANJITH THIAGARAJAN, CHASE WILLIAMS, and TOKEN FUND I LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kyle W. Roche, Esq. Edward Normand, Esq. Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq. Alex T. Potter, Esq. Richard R. Cipolla, Esq. ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 350-0527 E-mail: kyle@rochefreedman.com tnormand@rochefreedman.com vel@rochefreedman.com apotter@rochefreedman.com rcipolla@rochefreedman.com - and - Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq. Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq. Oscar Shine, Esq. Mitchell Nobel, Esq. SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC 1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 390-9000 E-mail: pselendy@selendygay.com jgoldstein@selendygay.com oshine@selendygay.com mnobel@selendygay.com BIOMAT USA: Illinois Court Dismisses Vaughan's Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the lawsuit captioned BRIAN R. VAUGHAN and JASON DARNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIOMAT USA, INC., TALECRIS PLASMA RESOURCES, INC., and INTERSTATE BLOOD BANK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04241 (N.D. Ill.). The putative class action lawsuit concerns the alleged unlawful collection and retention of biometric data. Plaintiffs Brian R. Vaughan and Jason Darnell claim that Defendants Biomat USA, Inc., Talecris Plasma Resources, Inc., and Interstate Blood Bank, Inc. violated Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), when they captured, collected, received through trade, and/or otherwise obtained the Plaintiffs' biometric data without providing appropriate disclosures or obtaining their written consent to do so, and then failed to destroy the data as required. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Background The Defendants operate plasma donation centers in Illinois. The Plaintiffs assert that they donated plasma at one of the Defendants' Illinois-based plasma donation centers within this District, though they do not specify which center they visited or when they donated. Each time that the Plaintiffs donated plasma, they were required to scan their fingerprint using a biometric device. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the Defendants used this information to generate a biometric template for the Plaintiffs, which was then stored in a database and used to track the Plaintiffs' plasma donations. The Defendants never notified the Plaintiffs of the specific purposes or length of time for which they were collecting, storing, or using the Plaintiffs' biometric data. Nor did the Defendants provide the Plaintiffs with their biometric data retention policies. Further, the Plaintiffs never signed a written release allowing the Defendants to collect, capture, store, or otherwise obtain their fingerprint print(s), handprint, hand geometry, or other biometrics. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs have been exposed to serious and irreversible privacy risks and have been deprived of certain information to which they are entitled. Procedural History Plaintiff Vaughan sued Biomat and Talecris in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that they violated Sections 15(a) and (b) of BIPA. After Biomat and Talecris removed Vaughan's suit to this Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), Vaughan amended the complaint to add Darnell as a plaintiff and Interstate Blood Bank as a defendant. In the Amended Complaint, Vaughan and Darnell seek to represent themselves and "[a]ll persons who were enrolled in the biometric system used by Defendants in Illinois for plasma donors while donating plasma to Defendants from five years preceding the filing of this action to the date a class notice is mailed in this action." They seek liquidated damages for negligent and reckless violations of BIPA, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Analysis The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in several respects. Because the Court agrees with the Defendants that the Amended Complaint engages in impermissible group pleading, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint on that basis only. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a violation by each Defendant because they do not plead specific facts as to each Defendant, such as which plasma donation center(s) the Plaintiffs visited, which Defendant operated the facilities where they donated, or the dates of any of their donations. The Plaintiffs disagree because liability in this case is not predicated upon which the Defendant purchased the plasma, but rather, which committed a BIPA violation, and they have alleged that the Defendants obtained, used, and stored their biometric data. The Plaintiffs further believe discovery will show that the Defendants operate as part of a common network and that the Defendants are on notice of the Plaintiffs' claims. District Judge Marvin E. Aspen finds that the Amended Complaint here does not include these particulars. It contains only two Defendant-specific paragraphs, which provide rudimentary information about each Defendant's operations and where each Defendant is incorporated. Defendants Biomat and Talecris are Delaware corporations with multiple business locations in Illinois where they contract with people to purchase their plasma. Defendant Interstate Blood Bank is a Tennessee corporation with multiple business locations in Illinois where it contracts with people to purchase their plasma. Interstate Blood Bank also operates under the name Plasma Biological Services, LLC ("PBS"). PBS merged into Interstate Blood Bank in 2019. Otherwise, the Amended Complaint simply lumps the Defendants together, alleging that all three of them performed the same actions. Nor is it clear from the Amended Complaint how the Defendants are related in a way that would be relevant here, Judge Aspen notes. Although the Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants are "part of the Grifols network of blood plasma donation" and that "Grifols operates in Illinois" under the Defendants' names, they do not allege facts indicating why each Defendant's connection to Grifols is significant in this case. The Plaintiffs are not expected to detail all aspects of their case at the pleading stage, but there are certain factual allegations that they should be able to make that notify each Defendant of the scope of its potential liability, Judge Aspen explains. In this case, such allegations include which plasma donation center(s) the Plaintiffs visited and which Defendant operated the center(s) where the Plaintiffs donated. If a Defendant was not involved in that process, the Plaintiffs must allege other facts plausibly showing that the Defendant's liability for the Plaintiffs' injuries. The cases cited in Plaintiffs' Opposition do not convince the Court otherwise, Judge Aspen holds. The courts in Wordlaw v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago, LLC, No. 20 CV 3200, 2020 WL 7490414, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2020), and Cunningham v. Foresters Financial Services, Inc., 300 F.Supp.3d 1004, 1016 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 9, 2018), allowed the plaintiffs to pursue claims against multiple defendants where the plaintiffs stated facts connecting the defendants to the alleged harm but did not fully flesh out the relationships between defendants. In both cases, however, the plaintiffs could not reasonably be expected to provide the missing information without the benefit of discovery. By contrast, Judge Aspen points out, the Plaintiffs in this case failed to plead facts that they know or can reasonably be expected to know without the benefit of discovery. For instance, the Plaintiffs should be able to articulate where their biometric data was collected. They should also be able set forth the relationship between Biomat, Talecris, and Interstate Blood Bank in at least general terms because Plaintiffs made the decision to sue these entities in the same suit. Because the Amended Complaint does not contain basic pieces of information connecting each Defendant to the claims at issue, it must be dismissed, Judge Aspen holds, citing Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. N. Am., Inc., No. 16 CV 06113, 2017 WL 4269005, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2017). Conclusion For the reasons set forth, Judge Aspen grants the Defendants' Motion. The Plaintiffs will have until May 19, 2022, to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this opinion if they can do so in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/sse7u733 from Leagle.com. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYK BEZIRGANYAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00711-AB-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order approving stipulation to set a plaintiff, deadline to file a motion for class certification and to establish a briefing schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file Dec. 16, 2022 a motion for class certification is: 2. The deadline for Defendant to file Feb. 3, 2023 an opposition is: 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file Feb. 24, 2023 a reply to Defendant's opposition is: 4. The hearing for Plaintiff’s motion March 10, 2023 is set for: BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3szCTk5 at no extra charge.[CC] BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brother International Corporation. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brother International Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03762 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brother International Corporation -- https://global.brother/en -- is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brother Industries Ltd., a Japanese multinational electronics and electrical equipment company headquartered in Nagoya.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of RCMP Facial Recognition Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bronskill at The Canadian Press reports that the federal government is asking a judge to dismiss a Quebec photographer's bid for certification of a class-action lawsuit, possibly involving millions of people, over the RCMP's use of a controversial facial-recognition tool. In a submission to the Federal Court, government lawyers say Ha Vi Doan cannot allege that she suffered "harm of any kind" as a result of the national police force's dealings with U.S. firm Clearview AI. Doan's proposed class-action lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for her and other Canadians whose photos and related information were allegedly part of a massive database compiled by Clearview AI and used under licence by the Mounties. Clearview AI's technology has come under intense scrutiny because it entails collection of huge numbers of images from various sources with the aim of helping police forces, financial institutions and other clients identify individuals from photos. n a February 2021 report, federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien and three provincial counterparts said the New York-based company's scraping of billions of images of people from across the internet was a clear violation of Canadians' privacy rights. Last June, Therrien found the RCMP broke the law by using Clearview AI's software to collect personal information. The privacy commissioner found the RCMP had conducted 521 searches through paid and trial user accounts with Clearview from October 2019 to July 2020. "In the absence of any evidence that the RCMP conducted these searches and seizures under lawful authority, the searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable," Doan argues in a submission to the court. Therrien concluded the RCMP had accessed images of Canadians from Clearview AI in the course of its work. The Mounties have said publicly the force used the company's technology only in a limited way, primarily for identifying, locating and rescuing children who were victims of online sexual abuse. However, the privacy commissioner's investigation found the RCMP did not satisfactorily account for the vast majority of the searches it made. In the court filing, the federal lawyers say use of Clearview helped the RCMP identify and locate three child victims. Other uses included searching for a wanted fugitive and testing the application with either images of police officers, modified pictures of an American celebrity or media images of missing persons. Clearview AI stopped offering its services in Canada on July 6, 2020. Doan's proposed class proceeding says the RCMP became a Clearview AI client even though the company's services entailed a "large-scale invasion of privacy of residents and citizens of Canada,'' as well as infringement of copyright. Doan is passionate about photography and takes pictures of herself and others, posting a significant number on her own website and online platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, the filing says. She alleges her "personal biometric information'' and photos have been collected, copied, reproduced, stored or used by Clearview without her knowledge or consent. The class action would cover people in Canada whose images are in the Clearview AI database and those holding copyright and moral rights with respect to photos. It seeks a court order that the RCMP destroy all documents and information from Clearview in response to searches of the database involving residents of Canada. In their filing, federal lawyers note Doan obtained confirmation from Clearview that as of July 10, 2020, the company had identified seven distinct images of her from the internet. These appear to be from her Instagram and Twitter accounts, her commercial website and two unrelated sources. "Whether one speaks of Google, Facebook, Instagram, Clearview, or a telephone directory, access to any public database or search engine does not create liability with respect to every person whose information is contained therein regardless of whether or how or what information was actually accessed," the federal submission says. Doan does not allege that the RCMP actually saw, let alone copied, even a single photograph of her or taken by her in Clearview, the government lawyers say. "Her case is premised on the notion that this fact does not matter. It does matter. In the absence of any material fact that the defendant looked for, saw, or copied some information related to the plaintiff, it is illusory to speak of violations of her rights or of causation," the federal filing says. "Indeed, the plaintiff has not (and could not) allege that she has suffered any harm of any kind." This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 13, 2022. [GN] CARE AT HOME: Faces Nqadolo Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- NANDE NQADOLO and PAMELA MANGALI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARE AT HOME, LLC, SUZANNE KARP and DANIEL KARP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn., April 29, 2022) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage Act seeking compensation at proper overtime rate for furnishing food and lodging and for compensation for all hours worked including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs. Plaintiffs Nqadolo and Mangali worked as home care assistants, a/k/a caregivers, for the Defendants from approximately March 22, 2021, to December 15, 2021, and from approximately December 7, 2015, to present date, respectively. Care at Home, LLC provides home health care service in New London, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in McGlone Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as URSULA MCGLONE, et al., v. CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02196-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class August 30, 2023 certification shall be filed by: -- The Defendants' opposition shall October 16, 2023 be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be Nov. 15, 2023 filed by: -- All class discovery shall be April 14, 2023 completed by: -- All merits discovery shall be October 1, 2024 completed by: -- The Plaintiffs' primary expert May 15, 2023 reports: -- The Defendants' expert reports: June 15, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' responsive expert July 17, 2023 reports: -- The Plaintiffs' primary expert Nov. 1, 2024 reports: -- The Defendants' expert reports: Dec. 9, 2024 -- The Plaintiffs' responsive expert Jan. 15, 2025 reports: Centrus is an American company that supplies nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power plants. It is the parent company of the United States Enrichment Corporation, a corporation that contracts with the United States Department of Energy to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power stations. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wlL8RQ at no extra charge.[CC] CFG HEALTH: Former Employee Files Hour and Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Kendal Enz at lawstreetmedia.com reports that a former employee of CFG Health Network filed a class action complaint against the healthcare provider in a federal New Jersey court to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages that resulted from a ransomware attack. Kronos Private Cloud, a service that includes workforce management software, was hacked in December 2021, preventing customers such as CFG from being able to track employee hours and pay through the service. Since the attack, CFG has failed to accurately track employee hours, instead estimating the number of hours employees work in each pay period or duplicating checks from prior pay periods. As a result, non-exempt employees who work overtime are paid less than the hours they have worked, and many are not paid for all their regular wages, the lawsuit claims. "CFG 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, CFG pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce." "CFG 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," court documents state. The lawsuit claims CFG violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The plaintiff is seeking a certified class action, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties under federal and New Jersey wage laws, pre- and post-judgement interest rates, and costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is represented by Morgan & Morgan PA and Parmet PC. [GN] CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kathleen Paradowski filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RACHEL COLANGELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC.; and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01228-LEK-DEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action is brought against the Defendants for their negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the known risks of exposure to heavy metals, the Defendants have negligently, recklessly, and knowingly sold, manufactured, marketed, advertised, labeled, and distributed pet food under the brand names Acana and Orijen throughout the United States, without disclosing that they contain levels of arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead to consumers. The Defendants have wrongfully and misleadingly advertised and sold Acana and Orijen without any label or warning indicating to consumers that these products contain heavy metals, or that these toxins can over time accumulate in the dog's body to the point where poisoning, injury, and/or disease can occur, notes the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum-Decision and Order wherein Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness Stefan Boedeker was GRANTED with respect to the first part of Boedeker's expectation survey but otherwise DENIED; Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness Bruce G. Silverman was GRANTED; Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness Dr. Gary Pusillo was GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert Witness Dr. Robert H. Poppenga was DENIED as moot; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement was GRANTED; and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was DENIED as moot. The Court directed the Clerk of court to close this action. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., Case No. 22-962, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Paradowski is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com Defendants-Appellees Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP are represented by: Cynthia Neidl, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 54 State Street Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1435 E-mail: neidlc@gtlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. Plaintiff Harper initiated this putative class action against Defendants Charter Communications, LLC, and Charter Communications, Inc. alleging various violations of the California Labor and Business and Professions Codes. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2022, Judge William A. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' alternative motion for certification for interlocutory appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its order compelling Plaintiffs Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal to arbitration in light of the California Court of Appeal's recent decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal.App.4th 365 (2d Dist. 2022). In Ramirez, that court held that Charter's Solution Channel Agreement -- the same arbitration agreement the Court enforced in its prior order -- was unenforceable due to procedural and substantive unconscionability. A court may reconsider a prior order if it "is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Because Ramirez was decided after the court ordered Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal to arbitration, the Plaintiffs argue the decision represents an intervening change in controlling law. However, as the Ninth Circuit has stated, "decisions of California's six district appellate courts are persuasive but do not bind each other or the Ninth Circuit." Although the Ninth Circuit has noted that federal courts nonetheless "should" follow the California Court of Appeal's decisions regarding California law in most circumstances, this does not render the Court of Appeal's decisions binding. Because Ramirez is not binding, it does not constitute a "change in the controlling law," and the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order by Judge Shubb. The appellate case is captioned as Lionel Harper, et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No. 22-80039, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LIONEL HARPER, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, are represented by: Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq. SODERSTROM LAW PC 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 667-4700 E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com Defendant-Respondent CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC is represented by: Joseph Scott Carr, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 36th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (404) 213-3987 - and - Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (470) 447-0603 COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over GYEN Token Trading ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Coinbase Global Inc. was sued over its role in the promotion and trading of a stablecoin that allegedly was "anything but." The digital asset trading platform and the issuer of the GYEN token were accused of misleading investors about its stability, leading to millions of dollars in losses, according to a proposed class-action complaint filed on May 12 in federal court in northern California. "Investors placed orders believing the coin's value was, as advertised, equal to the yen, but the tokens they were purchasing were worth up to seven times more than the yen," according to the complaint. [GN] COLUMBIA GRAMMAR: Denial of C.H.'s Class Certification Bid Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled C.H., AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, CELESTE RAMIREZ, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COLUMBIA GRAMMAR AND PREPARATORY SCHOOL, Defendant-Respondent, 30467/20E, Appeal No. 15814, Case No. 2021-04103 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously affirmed without costs the order entered by Judge Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, on July 24, 2021. The Order denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to meet the prerequisites for maintaining a class action against the Defendant with respect to her claims for discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, and national origin and for retaliation, in violation of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The anonymous Instagram posts relied upon do not show that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over questions of law or fact affecting individual class members. Rather, they show that the wrongs allegedly committed were individual in nature or subject to individual defenses. The Plaintiff also failed to show that her claims are typical of those in the class, i.e., that they derive from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and are based upon the same legal theory, the Appellate Court opines, citing Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 99 [2d Dept 1980]. The Plaintiff's retaliation claim is especially atypical of the class, given her mother's affidavit that most of the parents of minority students with whom she spoke did not complain to school officials regarding discriminatory conduct. These parents and their children would not have a claim for retaliation. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdp25eh7 from Leagle.com. Law Office of John A. Scola, PLLC, in New York City (John A. Scola of counsel), for the Appellant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, in New York City (David J. Grech -- dgrech@grsm.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent. CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to File Certification Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adam Barnett, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Concentrix Solutions Corporation, a New York corporation, and Concentrix CVG Customer Management Group, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00266-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time, up to and including May 20, 2022 to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Certification. The Defendants request additional time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for multiple reasons: 1) To fully investigate Plaintiff's claims, review Company records and respond to Plaintiff's claims. 2) Defendants' counsel Mekesha Montgomery was involved in a trial from April 18, 2022 to April 22, 2022 that has prevented her from working on a response to Plaintiff's Motion. 3) In-house counsel for Defendants has been hospitalized, which has caused challenges in organizing an investigation and response to Plaintiff's allegations. 4) The Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the briefing on Plaintiff's Motion because the Defendants filed an earlier and dispositive Motion to Dismiss on the exact issue of conditional certification 4 weeks prior to Plaintiff's Motion. Concentrix is an American business services company specializing in customer engagement and business performance. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3La5SRO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Meister, Esq Elizabeth M. Soveranez, Esq Amy E. Salamon, Esq OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 - and - Mekesha H. Montgomery, Esq. Neal Shah, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD, LLC 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900 Nashville, TN 37201 CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Has Until May 27 to File Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carnley, et al., v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01075 (W.D. Tex,), the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply: -- The Defendants shall have through and including May 13, 2022, to file their response to Plaintiffs' amended motion for class Certification; and -- The Plaintiffs shall have through and including May 27, 2022, to file their reply to Defendants' response. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Banks and Banking -- involving electronic fund transfers. Conduent Business provides business process services.[CC] CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Bosch Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------- CARLOS DE MARCH BOSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, THOMAS P. GOTTSTEIN, and DAVID R. MATHERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02477 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse securities between March 19, 2021 and March 25, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. Credit Suisse has a history of business dealings with Russian oligarchs, or ultra-high net worth business leaders possessing significant political influence. For example, an article published by Financial Times on February 7, 2022, entitled "Credit Suisse securitises yacht loans to oligarchs and tycoons," cited a recent investor presentation for a synthetic securitization deal, in which Credit Suisse sold off $80 million worth of risk related to a $2 billion portfolio of loans backed by assets owned by certain of the bank's ultra-high net worth clients, referred here as the "Securitization Deal," which disclosed that, in 2017 and 2018, Credit Suisse experienced 12 defaults on yacht and aircraft loans, a third of which were related to U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit Suisse had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse's practice of lending money to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and international sanctions created a significant risk of violating rules pertaining to those sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to an increased risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iv) the Securitization Deal concerned loans that Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs previously sanctioned by the U.S.; (v) the purpose of the Securitization Deal was to offload the risks associated with these loans and mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely to be implemented by Western nations in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse's request that non-participating investors destroy documents related to the Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the Company's noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in its lending practices; (vii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational harm; and (viii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On this news, Credit Suisse's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 2.58%, to close at $7.94 per share on March 28, 2022. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Credit Suisse, together with its subsidiaries, provides various financial services in Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and Asia Pacific. The Company offers private banking and wealth management solutions, including advisory, investment, financial planning, succession planning, and trust services; and financing and lending, and multi-shore platform solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com CREDIT SUISSE: Sued for Financing Yachts of Sanctioned Persons -------------------------------------------------------------- Finews.asia reports that Credit Suisse is facing a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. related to financing yachts and private airplanes of sanctioned persons. Turbulent waters continue to swirl around Credit Suisse, with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. alleging the bank misled investors over dealing with Russian oligarchs, according to a story from Reuters. The complaint alleges «throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The lawsuit was filed in a district court in New York on behalf of clients who acquired Credit Suisse securities between March 19, 2021, and March 25, 2022, and have until June 28 to join the suit. Yachts and Planes Pomerantz LLP, the firm filing the suit cited a «Financial Times» (behind paywall) story from February that Credit Suisse securitized a portfolio of loans linked to its wealthiest clients' yachts and private jets using derivatives, allowing the bank to offload the risks from lending to ultra-wealthy oligarchs and entrepreneurs. The loans amounted to about $2 billion. Following the report in the «Financial Times», Credit Suisse issued a statement the deal «priced in line with other significant risk transactions, offered competitive investment and hedging terms for our professional investor clients while increasing the capital flexibility of the bank Destroy Documents In addition, the lawsuit also referred to a request from the U.S. government that Credit Suisse provide documents related to the financing. Credit Suisse subsequently sent letters to investors and hedge funds asking them to «destroy and permanently erase» information the bank previously provided regarding the transactions, as finews.com reported. Credit Suisse issued a statement saying it «requested non-participating investors to destroy documents relating to the matter, as stipulated in the NDA. Reminding parties to destroy confidential information is good housekeeping and good data hygiene. It added that no client data was made available to investors, nor had client data been erased with the bank. [GN] DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMERY DARLING AND ANA JARA, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE, AND DIGNITY HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-06043-YGR (N.D. Cal. ), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order denying without prejudice motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request another opportunity to address the Court's concerns. The Court hereby sets a compliance deadline for May 20, 2022. Five business days prior to the deadline, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint statement stating their respective positions regarding scheduling of the remainder of case, the Court says. The Plaintiffs Tomery Darling and Ana Jara bring this wage-and-hour class and collective action against defendants Dignity Health, Dignity Community Care, and Dignity Health Medical Group Nevada, LLC, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California unfair competition law (UCL), and Nevada labor law.1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to compensate them and other patient care employees for documenting patient information, i.e., charting, while off the clock. The plaintiffs are Tomery Darling and Ana Jara. Darling, who asserts the UCL claim, appears to have been employed as a lab technician at Dignity Health's Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, California. Hospital chain Dignity Health operates 22 hospitals in California and Nevada, employing approximately 40,430 hourly employees. DHMGN operates five medical clinics exclusively in Nevada, employing 170 hourly employees. The movants do not seek certification of a class with respect to DCC. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FGCUYE at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order granting lead plaintiffs' unopposed motion to file under seal. The Lead Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their unredacted Reply Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion for Class Certification, unredacted Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Adam Wierzbowski, and Exhibits 2, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 25 to the Declaration of Adam Wierzbowski under seal. The Clerk is directed to file Lead Plaintiffs' unredacted Reply Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion for Class Certification, unredacted Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Adam Wierzbowski, and Exhibits 2, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 25 to the Declaration of Adam Wierzbowski under seal in accordance with this Order. Energy Transfer is a company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wa0OIY at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Mull Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA MULL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF TENNESSEE, LLC, FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC, FAMILY DOLLAR INC., and DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02272 (W.D. Tenn., May 2, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act as a result of Plaintiff's purchase of contaminated products. According to the complaint, the Food and Drug Administration advised that all FDA-regulated products sold by certain Family Dollar stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee from January 1, 2021, through present are not fit for human use or consumption, including human foods, cosmetics, medical devices, and over-the-counter medications, referred to as the contaminated products, because of the unsanitary conditions, rodent infestation, and related health hazards. The alleged contaminated products were defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time they were purchased by Plaintiff and Class Members. No ordinary consumer with ordinary knowledge common to the community would foresee the risks posed by the Contaminated Products and no reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller would market and sell the contaminated products, says the suit. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael G. Stewart, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. Janna L. Maples, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com mikes@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com jannam@bsjfirm.com FARMERS INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Seeks to File Class Reply Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, et al., v. The Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02522-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs apply to file under seal certain materials in support of their Reply to Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification. The following items are to be filed under seal: -- A redacted Version of Andres Rivero's Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' motion. -- The concurrently submitted Declaration of Andres Rivero (Public Version and Non-Public Version) in support of this application chronicles Plaintiffs' compliance 16 with Rule 79-5.2.2 and outlines Good Cause for sealing materials and the propriety of their public, redacted versions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l0Xaef at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Anthony S. Hearn, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon, Blvd. Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com arolnick@riveromestre.com ahearn@riveromestre.com - and - Charlie Whorton, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - R. Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bloom, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order approving the joint stipulation for continuation of motion for class certification deadlines: -- The Plaintiffs shall have until Friday, July 7, 2022 to file a motion for class certification and to serve their expert disclosures and reports related to class certification. -- The defendant shall have until Monday, August 22, 2022 to file an opposition and to concurrently file its expert disclosures and reports related to class certification. -- The plaintiffs shall file a reply by Monday, September 12, 2022. the hearing on the class certification motion shall take place on Thursday, September 29, 2022. 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 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38lg0tH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq. Meghan N. Higday, Esq. WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930 4 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 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 862-4585 Facsimile: (901) 492-5641 E-mail: thomas.moran@fedex.com FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid to Strike Hinds' PAGA Claim -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HINDS, et al., v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01431-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting FedEx's motion to strike. The Court said, "The non-party aggrieved employees may not have a personal claim for California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties, but a PAGA claim "functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself, a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government." The Court will assume for the sake of argument that Plaintiffs would have standing under PAGA to pursue claims against FedEx for individuals directly employed by ISPs other than Bay Rim. Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that they have a viable trial plan to make the PAGA claim manageable as to violations on behalf of those aggrieved employees, who could be bound by a judgment that FedEx was not their joint employer. Further, neither Wesson nor Estrada addressed the issue of striking a PAGA claim in the context of joint employment and can be distinguished on that basis. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its inherent authority to limit Plaintiffs' PAGA claim the alleged violations by Bay Rim." On January 3, 2022, the Court reserved ruling on FedEx'smotion to strike Plaintiffs' claim under PAGA. On August 18, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, finding that individualized issues predominated over common issues. Fedex Ground provides package delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FD4o1c at no extra charge.[CC] FINEJEWELERS.COM: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finejewelers.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Finejewelers.Com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03776 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Finejewelers.com, Inc. -- https://www.finejewelers.com/ -- offers the best quality jewelry online with a large selection of pendants, earrings, bracelets, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. ("First High-School Education " or the "Company") (NYSE: FHS) investors that a class action filed on behalf of investors that purchased First High-School Education Group shares and lost money are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss their legal rights. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the lawsuit, the Company's IPO Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education Group and its business; (2) contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new educational facilities which would have a negative effect on First High-School Education Group's enrollment and growth; and (3) as a result, the Registration Statement's representations regarding First High-School Education Group's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of First High-School Education Group at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and misleading and lacked a factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Rosen Law Reminds of July 11 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 11, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased First High-School Education Group securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the First High-School Education Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6131 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 11, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education Group and its business; (2) contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new educational facilities which would have a negative effect on First High-School Education Group's enrollment and growth; and (3) as a result, the Registration Statement's representations regarding First High-School Education Group's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of First High-School Education Group at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and misleading and lacked a factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the First High-School Education Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6131 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement in Noll Suit Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY NOLL, individually and, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. FLOWERS FOODS INC, LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC., and CK SALES CO., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00493-LEW (D. Maine), the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order granting joint motion for final approval of proposed class action settlement and motion for attorney's fees, expenses and service award. The class action settlement is approved, including the agreed award of attorneys' fees and costs and Mr. Landry's service award. Subject to a reasonable request for extension, the parties will file within 30 days of this order a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and/or an appropriate motion to effectuate the closure of these related cases. The Defendant Flowers Foods is headquartered in Georgia and holds numerous wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Defendants Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC and CK Sales Co., LLC, that produce various baked goods, including packaged breads, rolls, and cakes. Since late 2013, Lepage contracts with independent distributors, including Maine distributors, like Plaintiffs. These distributors purchase distribution rights to sell and distribute products to customers in defined territories. Distributors enter into Distributor Agreements with Lepage whereby they are classified as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs argue that distributors should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, and that this mischaracterization imposed several financial burdens on mischaracterized class members. The Plaintiffs argue that distributors' job responsibilities and the reality of their relationship with Defendants supports a finding that they are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maine Wage Payment Laws. Due to their classification as independent contractors, distributors bear business-related expenses, such as administrative fees, warehouse fees, territory payments, truck payments or lease payments, and insurance payments. Also due to their classification as independent contractors, distributors were not paid overtime for more than forty hours of work in a workweek, nor were they afforded the benefits to which they would have been entitled as employees. Plaintiffs accordingly sought to recover overtime wages under the FLSA and Maine law, as well as reimbursement of deductions under Maine law. The Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs' allegations, denied violating the law, and denied that Plaintiffs or class members are entitled to damages or other relief. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lpce5D at no extra charge.[CC] FOSTER FIRM: Marchan-Davila Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH MARCHAN-DAVILA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE FOSTER FIRM, LLC, KEITH FOSTER, individually, and ARNICE HALL FOSTER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01726-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 2, 2022) is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and those similarly situated who elect to opt-in to this action. The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants as a medical records coordinator. However, she performed the job duties as a paralegal. In June 2020, the Plaintiff was promoted to a paralegal and continued to perform the same job duties. The Foster Firm, owned by Keith Foster and Arnice Hall Foster, is a personal injury law firm in College Park, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Lampros, Esq. Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS LLP 400 Galleria Pkwy Se, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com rachel@hallandlampros.com FREUD AMERICA: Tuter Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JEFFREY TUTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREUD AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2216- CV05185, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court of Jackson County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 29, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-282 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by means of unfair practices in failing to "include a clear expiration date" on its Diablo-branded bonded abrasive disc products. Freud America, Inc. offers wholesale distribution of cutlery and general hardware.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory K. Wu, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: gwu@shb.com GENUINE PARTS: Yoakum, et al Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE YOAKUM, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00718-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the claims set forth in Plaintiffs' 5th ACC as an "opt out" class action on behalf of the Classes and Sub-Classes proposed below; and 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jesse Yoakum, Raymond Rushley, Tyler Clenin, Robert Brandes, Paul Deshon, and Mike Defries as Class Representatives, and appointing Named Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Classes and Sub-Classes pursuant to Federal Rule 23: a. Nationwide Class The Plaintiffs seek nationwide class certification of the negligence claims against Warren set forth in Count VII of the 5th ACC for the following Class of similarly situated persons/entities: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid, Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, Carquest 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Coastal 303 Tractor Fluid, and/or Lubriguard Tractor Hydraulic and Transmission Oil in the United States, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale. b. Nationwide Sub-Class – Purchasers from GPC The Plaintiffs seek nationwide class certification of the negligence claims against GPC set forth Count VII of the 5th ACC for the following Sub-Class of similarly situated persons/entities who purchased from GPC/NAPA Stores: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid and/or Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, from Balkamp, Inc., NAPA Auto Parts, or Genuine Parts Company, in the United States, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." c. Missouri Sub-Classes The Plaintiffs seek certification of the claims set forth in Counts I through VII of the 5th ACC the following Missouri-specific Sub-Classes of similarly situated persons/entities: Warren 303 THF Missouri Sub-Class: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid, Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, Carquest 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Coastal 303 Tractor Fluid, and/or Lubriguard Tractor Hydraulic and Transmission Oil in Missouri, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." -and - GPC Purchasers Sub-Class to the Warren 303 THF Missouri Sub-Class: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid and/or Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, from Balkamp, Inc., NAPA Auto Parts, or Genuine Parts Company, in Missouri, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale. d. Missouri Personal Use Sub-Classes The Plaintiff Rushley seeks certification of the claim set forth in Count VIII of the 5 th ACC for the following Missouri-specific Sub-Classes of similarly situated persons: Warren 303 THF Personal Use Missouri Sub-Class: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid, Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, Carquest 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Coastal 303 Tractor Fluid, and/or Lubriguard Tractor Hydraulic and Transmission Oil primarily for personal, family or household use in Missouri, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." -and- GPC Purchasers Sub-Class to the Warren 303 THF Personal Use Missouri Sub-Class: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid and/or Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, from Balkamp, Inc., NAPA Auto Parts, or Genuine Parts Company, primarily for personal, family or household use in Missouri, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." e. Kansas Sub-Classes The Plaintiff Yoakum seeks certification of the claims set forth in Counts 1 through VII and Count IX for the following Kansas-specific Sub-Classes of similarly situated persons: Warren 303 THF Kansas Sub-Class All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid, Warren 303 Tractor Fluid, Carquest 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Coastal 303 Tractor Fluid, and/or Lubriguard Tractor Hydraulic and Transmission Oil in Kansas, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale. -and- GPC Purchasers Sub-Class to the Warren 303 THF Kansas Sub- Class: "All persons and other entities who purchased NAPA Quality Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid and/or Warren 303 Tractor Fluid from Balkamp, Inc., NAPA Auto Parts, or Genuine Parts Company, in Kansas, at any point in time from July 26, 2014 to present, excluding any persons and/or entities who purchased for resale." Excluded from each of the above Class and Sub-Classes are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants' officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate family members, and the judicial officers assigned to this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate families. Genuine Parts is an American service organization engaged in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, industrial replacement parts, office products and electrical/electronic materials. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and Sub-Classes dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PkK3Cz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. William Carr, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: bcarr@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Thomas V. Bender, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC Dirk Hubbard, MO 37936 2600 Grand, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com dhubbard@hab-law.com - and - Clayton A. Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 257 405 W. 58 Hwy. Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Court Stays Discovery in California Crane Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion for a protective order temporarily staying discovery in the case entitled CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC., Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10001-HSG (N.D. Cal.). California Crane School, Inc., filed the putative class action lawsuit on Dec. 27, 2021. The operative complaint alleges that Defendants Apple and Google violated federal antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete in the internet search business. All the Defendants have moved to dismiss or stay consideration of the Plaintiffs' Complaint on various grounds. Specifically, the Google Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Apple Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration, and all Defendants filed dispositive motions to dismiss the Complaint. The Court refers to Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings, Inc., Sundar Pichai, and Eric Schmidt collectively as "Google," or the "Google Defendants," unless otherwise noted. Similarly, Defendants Apple Inc. and Tim Cook are "Apple," or the "Apple Defendants," unless otherwise noted. Defendants Pichai, Schmidt, and Cook are the "Individual Defendants," unless otherwise noted. Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion for a protective order temporarily staying discovery in the case until the Court resolves those motions. The Court finds the matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument, and grants the motion. The Court finds that good cause exists to stay discovery until the pending motions are resolved for three reasons. First, those motions may dispose of at least some Defendants, if not the Plaintiff's entire case. Second, no additional discovery would help the Court resolve those motions because they either challenge the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's complaint or raise narrow legal issues about the scope of Google's arbitration provisions. And finally, forcing the Defendants to spend time and resources on the kind of discovery that the Plaintiff seeks--which among other things includes depositions of Apple's and Google's CEOs and senior executives--before the Court has an opportunity to assess whether the Plaintiff has pled any plausible claims against them may subject the Defendants to undue burden and expense. In the case, as in the usual antitrust case, the Court believes it is sounder practice to determine whether there is any reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery, Judge Gilliam opines, citing Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court, accordingly, grants the Defendants' Motion to Stay. Discovery is stayed until the Court rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Google Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the Apple Defendants' Motion to Stay this Litigation Pending Arbitration. This Order also terminates Docket No. 55. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yr23d6tx from Leagle.com. GOOGLE LLC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Bessler at Illinois Radio Network reports that Illinois residents who have appeared in a photograph on the Google Photos app within the last seven years may be eligible to receive a portion of a $100 million settlement. A lawsuit alleged Google's face grouping tool, which sorts faces in the app by similarity, is in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA. The law, enacted in 2008, requires companies to get user consent for the use of such technologies. Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy with the ACLU of Illinois, said the state has one of the most stringent biometric privacy laws in the country. "The use of biometric information has expanded across the world," said Yohnka. "Illinois has been a place that has really protected the privacy of individuals who live here." Google did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which resolves a group of lawsuits filed by five plaintiffs. If a final order is approved in the case, Illinoisans who appeared in a photograph in Google Photos between May 1, 2015 and the date of the settlement's preliminary approval would be able to take part in the deal. A Google spokesperson said Google Photos users in Illinois will be prompted to provide opt-in consent to face grouping in the coming weeks, and will expand nationwide soon after. The case follows a similar settlement with Facebook over its facial tagging feature. The settlement included about 1.4 million Facebook users in Illinois for whom the social network created and stored a face template after June, 2011. Checks are finally going out this month after two plaintiffs who objected to the awarding of $97.5 million in attorneys' fees in the case, have dropped their appeal. In November, Facebook announced it would shut down its facial recognition system amid "growing concerns" over the widespread use of the technology. Face surveillance company Clearview AI settled a case brought by the ACLU to follow new restrictions on capturing biometric data. "By requiring Clearview to comply with Illinois' pathbreaking biometric privacy law not just in the state, but across the country, this settlement demonstrates that strong privacy laws can provide real protections against abuse," said Nathan Freed Wessler, a deputy director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "Clearview can no longer treat people's unique biometric identifiers as an unrestricted source of profit. Other companies would be wise to take note, and other states should follow Illinois' lead in enacting strong biometric privacy laws." Yohnka believes most people are oblivious to the information companies are gathering on individuals on a daily basis. "Most of us don't spend our time thinking about what the implications are to have a private company have our faceprint," said Yohnka.[GN] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Pimentel's Bid for Discovery Responses Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL PIMENTEL, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-CV-405-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies: (a) the Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses filed March 30, 2022; and (b) the Plaintiff's Motion To Modify Scheduling Order filed April 1, 2022. These motions have been referred to Magistrate Judge Keesler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b). Having carefully considered the motions and the record, and following consultation with the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.'s chambers, Magistrate Judge Keesler denies the motions. By the instant motion to compel, the Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to produce "class-wide information or documentation." The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in "gamesmanship" and calculated efforts to waste judicial resources. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has declined to provide class-wide discovery until if and when ordered to do so by the Court. In response, the Defendant asserts that it has responded completely to discovery concerning the named Plaintiff and argues that the Plaintiff demands discovery that is beyond the needs of the case and relates to a "class" to which the Plaintiff is not a part and, therefore, could not represent. In addition, the Defendant notes that Judge Conrad held a scheduling conference on Oct. 18, 2021, and decided to adopt a single-plaintiff track discovery plan. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff had forecast that he intended to move for conditional class certification by mid-February 2022, but to date, has not filed such a motion. Magistrate Judge Keesler observes that the parties' "Certification And Report Of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Conference And Discovery Plan" offered competing discovery plans and that counsel requested a conference with the Court before entry of a scheduling order. Judge Conrad held a scheduling conference on Oct. 18, 2021, and then issued his "Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan" on Oct. 28, 2021. Notably, the "Pretrial Order" adopted most, if not all, of the Defendant's proposed deadlines. Based on consultation with Judge Conrad's staff and review of a transcript of the Oct. 18, 2021 scheduling conference, Magistrate Judge Keesler states that it is apparent that the parties had a dispute from the outset of this case as to whether this case should be treated, and scheduled, as a single plaintiff case or a class action. Judge Conrad decided to schedule discovery in this case on a single Plaintiff/Defendant basis, and opined that if the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification, and the Court granted that motion, the Court would then reconsider the timelines (and discovery limits) imposed in the scheduling order. The Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order seeks to extend the case deadline by approximately six (6) months. The crux of the Plaintiff's position -- directly related to the motion to compel -- seems to be that he needs more time to conduct class-wide discovery that Defendant has declined to cooperate in. As noted, to date, the Plaintiff has not sought conditional class certification. Under these circumstances, Magistrate Judge Keesler says he will decline to extend the case deadlines or expand the scope of discovery in this action in a manner that is inconsistent with Judge Conrad's clear expectations for this case. Rather, Magistrate Judge Keesler finds that these motions should be denied, without prejudice to the Plaintiff filing revised motions, if necessary, that seek discovery and/or additional time consistent with the "Pretrial Order...," and/or without prejudice to renewed motions if the Court later allows a request to expand the scope of this case. Therefore, the "Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses" is denied without prejudice. The "Plaintiff's Motion To Modify Scheduling Order" is also denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/627zxncn from Leagle.com. GRAND CANYON: Carson Little Seeks Approval of Class Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Grand Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order appointing Angeion Group as the Notice Administrator and approving the following notice plan, in the form of the proposed Order submitted contemporaneously as follows: -- Class notice shall be administered by Angeion Group and by GCU, through the forms of notice; -- GCU shall provide the Class List to Plaintiff and/or Angeion Group no later than ten days after the Court's entry of an order approving the notice plan; -- The deadline for sending class notice shall be: 30 days after receipt by Plaintiff and/or Angeion of the Class List; -- Angeion Group will create and maintain a website dedicated to this action on which the class notice will be accessible; -- Angeion Group will implement a toll-free hotline devoted to this case to further apprise Class members of their rights and options pursuant to the terms of the litigation; and The Plaintiff filed this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against GCU alleging that he and others similarly situated lost the benefits of the services, facilities, resources, activities, and/or events for which they paid, because of GCU's response and policies relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that GCU told students to go home and/or stopped providing or materially reduced the items for which fees had paid, without refunding in full and without condition, a proportionate amount of the fees, thus breaching its contracts with Plaintiff and the other Class members. On January 28, 2022, the Court certified a Class for the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), defined as: "All students enrolled in on-campus classes at Grand Canyon University for the Spring 2020 semester and who were charged and paid fees for services, facilities, resources, activities, and/or events that were not provided, in whole or in part, during the Spring 2020 semester." Grand Canyon is a private for-profit Christian university in Phoenix, Arizona A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wq3TDy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Matthew S. Miller, Esq. MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-741-1085 E-mail: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com - and - Robert D. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. RYAN, P.L.C. 343 West Roosevelt Street, Suite 220 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 256-2333 E-mail: rob@robertdryan.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Honecker, Esq. Sean P. Healy, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Phoenix Plaza Tower II 929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 385-1040 E-mail: kathryn.honecker@lewisbrisbois.com sean.healy@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 E-mail: jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com GYMNASTICS CANADA: Abuse Allegations Described in Class-Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rant Robertson and Rachel Brady at theglobeandmail.com reports that Gymnastics Canada responded to a proposed class-action lawsuit launched by a group of former and current athletes, saying the physical, sexual and psychological abuse being alleged is unacceptable. "The allegations we have been made aware of in the claim describe behaviour that is unacceptable in any sport environment, and we take them very seriously," Ian Moss, chief executive officer of the sport's national governing body, said in a statement. "As leaders in the sport of gymnastics within Canada, we are committed to providing a safe environment for members of our sport that is accessible, inclusive, respects our participants' personal goals and is free from all forms of maltreatment," the statement said. "This is a collective effort and we will continue to work with our sport partners to support provincial member organizations and clubs throughout our community." A group of Canadian gymnasts filed a proposed class action in B.C. Supreme Court against Gymnastics Canada and six affiliated provincial organizations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The suit alleges the sport's federal and provincial governing bodies turned a blind eye to years of abuse by coaches and other officials. The allegations include claims of inappropriate sexual contact, sexual grabbing, kissing and fondling of athletes; slapping, pinching, and forcing gymnasts to overtrain; and inducing some to adopt dangerous eating disorders. None of the allegations have been proven in court. The class action, which is seeking certification, is led by Amelia Cline, a former top Canadian gymnast who left the sport in the mid-2000s and alleges her coach was abusive. In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Ms. Cline, now 32, said that as a 14-year-old rising star, she pulled her hamstring so badly it tore off a fragment of bone. The injury happened when her coach in B.C., demanding she train harder, took hold of her leg and forced her into a dangerous stretch, ignoring her cries from the pain. Two months later, still recovering from the injury, Ms. Cline said she was forced to attempt a series of difficult flips she had not fully practised, landed on her head and was injured. Upset at her performance, Ms. Cline said her coach put her on a scale and told her the struggle to land the flips was not because she hadn't practised, but because she wasn't thin enough. Ms. Cline said young girls were counselled by coaches on how to refuse food and lie to their parents about eating disorders. "Amelia's experience of abuse is representative of what many gymnasts in Canada endure," the lawsuit alleges. "Numerous gymnasts across Canada have brought forward complaints spanning decades that detail their experiences of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse and institutional complicity that has enabled the culture of mistreatment of gymnastics athletes to persist." Ms. Cline is the lead plaintiff in the documents, but at least 15 other gymnasts, who are not identified in the claim, have joined the class action alleging various forms of abuse. The Globe reached out to the six provincial governing bodies named alongside Gymnastics Canada in the lawsuit. Gymnastics Alberta and Gymnastics B.C. said they could not comment because they hadn't been provided with any official notification or documents related to the action. Dave Sandford, CEO of Gymnastics Ontario, said in a statement: "Gymnastics Ontario has developed ethical standards to ensure everyone feels welcome and empowered. We believe that a safe sport environment prioritizes the welfare, safety and rights of every participant at all times." Mr. Moss said Gymnastics Canada and the six provincial organizations had not been served with legal papers related to the case and learned about the action through the media. In its response, Gymnastics Canada pointed to the organization's procedures on its website for handling and investigating complaints, and its policies on preventing abuse. "Gymnastics Canada and our provincial member organizations have developed and implemented comprehensive policies and procedures to deal with concerns regarding abuse and maltreatment at all levels of the sport regardless of when or where they arise," the statement said. "We are committed to addressing all allegations that come forward with diligence and due process." The athletes' lawsuit says those policies are at the root of the problem, alleging that claims of improper behaviour and abuse were ignored, swept aside, or not dealt with. The suit also claims that athletes who lodged complaints were sometimes subject to threats that their careers would not advance, and that allegedly abusive coaches who produced results were rewarded with promotions rather than being punished. "The defendants caused or contributed to the abuse of gymnasts by creating a culture and an environment where the abuse could occur, and failing to take appropriate steps to protect the athletes in their care and control, many of whom were children when the abuse took place," the documents allege. The lawsuit says the gymnasts have suffered a wide range of long-term effects, from chronic pain, depression and anxiety to post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. Others have lifelong eating disorders, stunted growth and development, and anger issues. Sexual trauma has left some unable to develop and maintain intimate relationships, the documents say. Ms. Cline said the lawsuit is intended to help the gymnasts deal with the health problems, including the cost of medical treatment and therapy. The claims in the proposed class action go back as far as 1978. Last year, a group of top Canadian synchronized swimmers launched a proposed class-action lawsuit against Canada Artistic Swimming, alleging physical and psychological abuse, including pressure that forced them into eating disorders that hospitalized some and caused lifelong health consequences. That lawsuit is also seeking certification, and now involves more than 50 swimmers. In March, 71 former and current gymnasts, including 10 Olympians, wrote an open letter to Sport Canada, the arm of the federal government that funds national programs, calling for an independent investigation into abuse in their sport. More than 450 athletes and parents have now signed the letter. In April, the judge who oversaw the trial of disgraced former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, who was convicted of sexually assaulting more than 150 athletes, called on the federal government to heed the calls for an independent investigation in Canada. The advocacy group AthletesCAN, which represents members of Canada's national teams, lent its support to the lawsuit, saying, "We support our gymnastics members in their continuing battle for justice. It is their lived experiences that will form a critical pathway towards closure and leave an impact for future athletes." [GN] GYMNASTICS CANADA: Former B.C. Gymnast Lead Plaintiff in Abuse Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Nesbit at CTV News reports that a former Metro Vancouver gymnast has filed a class-action lawsuit against Gymnastics Canada and six provincial member organizations over alleged abuse. Amelia Cline is the lead plaintiff in the suit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court, and there are many as 20 other former gymnasts claiming lasting physical and psychological damages suffered over many years. The proposed class of plaintiffs are suing Gymnastics Canada and provincial governing bodies in B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan alleging they were abused while participating in programs and activities delivered between 1978 and the present. "The defendants caused or contributed to the abuse of gymnasts by creating a culture and an environment where the abuse could occur, and failing to take appropriate steps to protect the athletes in their care and control, many of whom were children when the abuse took place," reads the statement of claim. Cline was coached in Coquitlam, where she told CTV News she experienced "daily verbal, physical, psychological abuse." Cline said she was often pushed well beyond her physical limits. "One of my coaches actually stretched my leg so forcibly, it tore my hamstring off my pelvis," she said. "They would weigh us weekly, very publicly, and any sort of increase in weight would be met with a lot of public humiliation, a lot of yelling and encouragement to basically starve ourselves," Cline added. Cline, now 32, said the abuse led her to walk away from the sport at the age of 13. "I still have nightmares. I don't weigh myself very specifically because I've learned over the years that will send me into disordered eating. I still have physical ailments," Cline said. Gymnastics Canada responded to the lawsuit in a statement to CTV News, calling the allegations outlined in the claim "unacceptable in any sport environment." "We take them very seriously," the organization said. "As leaders in the sport of gymnastics within Canada, we are committed to providing a safe environment for members of our sport that is accessible, inclusive, respects our participants' personal goals and is free from all forms of maltreatment." Gymnastics Canada also pointed to its own "comprehensive policies and procedures" for dealing with allegations of abuse, which can be reported through its website. According to the lawsuit, Clines's injuries included a training-induced seizure, ongoing back and neck injuries and chronic pain, a hamstring avulsion fracture, fractures in a hand, wrist, fingers and toes, chronic knee pain, disordered eating, stunted growth, anxiety, insomnia and nightmares. Cline said she was inspired to write a blog detailing her traumas after seeing American gymnasts speak out about being sexually assaulted by Dr. Larry Nassar. "I was flooded by other gymnasts from the all the way up until present day saying this happened to me too," she said. The action seeks unspecified punitive and aggravated damages, past and future costs of health-care services, and an order directing Gymnastics Canada and the provincial bodies to implement, apply and follow appropriate governance procedures to prioritize the physical and psychological health of gymnasts. "We just want change in this sport, we just want to see the next generation of gymnasts be safe," said Cline. CTV News also reached out to Gymnastics B.C. for comment, but has yet to receive a response. None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court. [GN] HANNAFORD BROS: Underpays Bakery Managers, Prinzo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PRINZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10672 (D. Mass., May 4, 2022) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated workers, alleging unlawful failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Prinzo was employed as a bakery manager at the Defendant's Hannaford store in Middleboro, Massachusetts for about 13 years, until her termination in January 2021. Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC is an American supermarket chain based in Scarborough, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-6230 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com - and - Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 10 Wendell Ave. Ext. No. 208 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com HARTFORD HEALTH: Consumers' Health Insurance Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erica E. Phillips, writing for CTMirror.org, reports that around this time each year, the all-volunteer personnel committee at Unitarian Universalist Society: East in Manchester sits down with a broker to select an employee health insurance plan for the coming fiscal year. Only three of the church's six employees are on the plan, yet it costs about 10 percent of the nonprofit's annual $500,000 budget. And each year, their carriers' rates have gone up - often by double-digit percentages. "There was just no possible way the church could absorb that kind of increase in a premium," committee chair Vivian Carlson said, recalling a recent year when UUS:E's carrier was poised to raise rates by 25 percent. Reluctantly, the church has switched carriers and upped the deductible several times over the last few years, enabling it to stay within budgetary constraints but creating confusion and higher costs for staff members. Many small businesses and nonprofits in Connecticut face a similar conundrum, weighing the solvency of their business against how generous they'd like to be with employee health benefits. "We hear from employers every day that providing health care for their employees is either the No. 1 or No. 2 expenditure they have, and if that continues at this rate, they won't be able to locate here and provide good quality insurance and attract employees," said Vicki Veltri, director of the state's Office of Health Strategy. As health care benefits gobble up larger shares of their budgets, small businesses and nonprofits are forced to make tradeoffs. UUS:E delayed hiring a part-time membership coordinator, a position the Rev. Joshua Pawelek says would help the church's congregation boost its funding base. Instead, the church has to put those dollars toward insurance premiums. "We don't have a big endowment. We get our money from the members of the church," Pawelek said. "They're very generous, but if we have to add another six grand every year for health insurance, that makes it difficult to do other things," he said. Why so expensive? Health insurance premiums are going up largely because health care costs are rising. Over the past two decades, the cost of hospital and medical care has risen faster than inflation. "The carriers are continually seeking to bring innovative, more affordable products to market that include a focus on value-based care in recognition that affordability is critical," Susan Halpin, executive director for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, said in emailed comments. "To better achieve that goal, focus needs to be directed at how to best reduce the underlying cost of care." Halpin also said changing state and federal regulatory requirements, such as the Affordable Care Act's elimination of limits on pre-existing conditions, contribute to rate increases. In 2019, OHS found that hospital inpatient and outpatient spending were primary contributors to rising health care costs for commercially insured individuals. Nationally, hospital care accounted for 31 percent of all personal health care spending in 2019, rising 6.2 percent from the year prior to nearly $1.2 trillion. Jill McDonald Halsey, spokeswoman for the Connecticut Hospital Association, said the hospitals support the state's effort to limit the annual growth rate of health care spending -- an initiative, passed via Executive Order two years ago, known as the health care cost growth benchmark. She attributed the rising costs of care to several factors, including labor, the pandemic, inflation and inadequate state and federal payments for patients on Medicare and HUSKY plans. "We need to examine the entire system if we are to be successful, including providers, health insurance companies, and drug manufacturers," McDonald Halsey said in emailed comments. "OHS's analysis to date has been too narrowly focused and relies on incomplete data. If we are to be successful in achieving greater affordability, OHS will need to broaden its view to all stakeholders and focus on a more comprehensive list of contributing factors." The state General Assembly is currently considering legislation that would codify the governor's executive order on limiting rising health care costs through data transparency. House Bill 5042, which passed the House 119-29 and awaits a vote in the Senate, requires insurers and providers to make cost and quality data public and calls on OHS to hold public hearings with entities that don't meet state targets. The bill is part of a broad package of legislation, proposed by Gov. Ned Lamont, aimed at reining in health care costs across the state. On April 29, Lamont held a press conference at UConn Health in Farmington to push the Senate to pass H.B. 5042. Joined by Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, and Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, he told the gathering of doctors and state administrators: "This allows private sector employers across the board [to] be able to make the most informed decisions -- where you get the best value, where you can get the best return, and where you can get the highest quality health care." Hospital consolidation plays a role Academic researchers have attributed much of the steep rise in hospital costs in recent years to poorly functioning markets for hospital services -- namely, the consolidation of hospital systems through mergers and acquisitions, which reduces competition. In Connecticut, the health care field has consolidated significantly, with Hartford HealthCare and Yale New Haven Health steadily gaining share in markets around the state. Another piece of legislation proposed this session sought to outlaw anticompetitive practices among hospitals. Hartford HealthCare is fighting two civil lawsuits over allegedly "unfair methods" and "attempted monopolization" of the market. Competitor Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center sued HHC in January, and a group of consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the hospital system in February. UUS:E's Rev. Pawelek is one of the plaintiffs in the second case. In their complaint, he and his fellow plaintiffs alleged: "There is a direct connection between higher hospital prices and higher insurance premiums, and . . . one of the primary drivers of an increase in premiums is consolidation in the relevant hospital market." The economic effects of hospital consolidation can be far-reaching. Research from the RAND Corporation has tied hospital mergers -- and the higher prices for hospital care that result -- to declines in wages in their local markets. In a 2020 study, RAND's Daniel Arnold and Christopher Whaley found that hospital mergers between 2010 and 2016 reduced average wages of local residents by about 1 percent. Both Connecticut's Attorney General and the Office of Health Strategy have said they're paying close attention to the issue of hospital consolidation and the impact it can have on the cost of care. H.B. 5042 contains some minor adjustments to OHS's authority in reviewing and approving proposed mergers; OHS has recommended expanding that authority further. "We need access to insurance that's affordable, flexible and predictable," said Andy Markowski, Connecticut director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. "But before you even get to affordable, flexible and predictable, it needs to be in a competitive market." Multiplier effects When health insurance premiums go up, businesses pass along about half of that increased cost to their employees, said Priyanka Anand, a health economics researcher and associate professor of health administration and policy at George Mason University. "I kind of see it as a shared burden among the employer and the employee," Anand said. Reduced compensation can take a broader toll on the economy, Anand said. "If you have less money to take home, that's less for rent, it's less for food, it's less for all the other things you're spending on," she said. Smaller businesses, which make up 97 percent of all companies in Connecticut and employ roughly half of the state's workforce, often experience a more acute impact from higher health care costs. According to the National Conference of State Legislators, small businesses pay between 8 percent and 18 percent more than large companies for the same health insurance policies. While most working people (56 percent) are on insurance plans provided by their employers, smaller businesses are less likely to provide health benefits. That's partly because it costs more. Annual employee premiums at Connecticut companies with 10 or fewer staff can be hundreds of dollars more than the private sector average, according to data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The decision to take on that cost -- or not to -- can fundamentally change the way small businesses and nonprofits operate. State Sen. Christine Cohen and her husband own Cohen's Bagel Co. in Madison. After covering 100 percent of their employees' health insurance for many years, they recently decided to eliminate the benefit because it got too expensive. "It's a frustration as a business owner -- I want to attract talent, I want my employees to come work for me and stay with me," Cohen said. "Small businesses are out there every day begging for something to stop this," said Wendy Traub, co-owner of Hemlock Directional Boring Inc. in Torrington, which does contract work digging tunnels. With a very small staff, Hemlock used to cover all of its employees' health insurance at 100 percent, but now the company can only afford to cover 70 percent of the premiums -- with employees paying the other 30 percent. "It just starts to get unmanageable," Traub said. [GN] HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Houseman Appeals Class Suit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Aaron Houseman and Nancy Houseman are taking an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled AARON HOUSEMAN and NANCY HOUSEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERIC S. SAGERMAN, THOMAS D. WHITTINGTON, CLINTON S. LAIRD, BROCK J. VINTON, RAYMOND IBARGUEN, GEORGE D. SERGIO and HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8897-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. This is the latest round of the multi-faceted and testudinally-paced litigation over the acquisition of equity by the Plaintiffs, Aaron and Nancy Houseman, in Universata, Inc., and the distribution of the proceeds of a cash-out merger of that entity. The current dispute involves an alleged wrongdoing of a stockholders' representative in administration of the proceeds of the merger. The Housemans currently seek a review of the Court of Chancery's July 20, 2021 Memorandum Opinion, a March 1, 2022 Letter Opinion and an April 8, 2022 Letter Opinion. The appellate case is captioned as AARON HOUSEMAN and NANCY HOUSEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THOMAS WHITTINGTON, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 153,2022, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on May 3, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AARON HOUSEMAN and NANCY HOUSEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eric M. Andersen, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC Two Mill Road, Suite 202 Wilmington, DE 19806 Telephone: (302) 559-2119 HERITAGE GP: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Velez Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Velez and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Heritage GP LLC, a/k/a Princeton Acquisition LLC, a/k/a Princeton Management and Matthew B. Lester, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00486 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2022) is an action against the Defendant to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Velez was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee from April 8, 2018 to March 24, 2022, or almost four years. He worked as a maintenance employee and pool cleaner for Chelsea Courtyards Apartments, a residential complex with 138 units. Heritage GP LLC, a/k/a Princeton Acquisition LLC, a/k/a Princeton Management is a property management company based in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HILCORP ENERGY: Carl Appeals Dismissal of Gas Royalties' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Anne Carl, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANNE CARL, et al., Plaintiffs v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-02133, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston. This case is a proposed class action brought by owners of royalties for gas. Anne Carl and Anderson White, as Co-Trustees of the Carl/White Trust ("Plaintiff"), is the successor in interest lessor of the lease at issue. Defendant Hilcorp is the successor in interest Lessee. It operates at least two wells on the lease: Old Ocean Unit 253 (F24-F28) and Old Ocean Unit 249 (F24-F28). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has systematically underpaid royalties in violation of the royalty provision of the lease. The Plaintiff alleges that the gas royalty clause requires royalty to be paid on any gas used off the premises. The Plaintiff indicates that the Defendant typically uses gas off the lease premises to power the equipment that performs compression, dehydration, treatment, or processing services, or to pay in-kind for off-lease services. The Plaintiff further alleges that, even absent the royalty provision, the free use clause independently and expressly allows gas to be used only on the lease premises, so royalty must be paid for gas used off the lease premises. The leases of the Plaintiff and putative class members contain either or both clauses. The lawsuit arises from the fact that the Defendant does not pay for (post-production) use of gas off the lease premises. The Plaintiff brings a single claim, for breach of contract, against the Defendant under the Class Action Fairness Act. After the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on Aug. 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 8, 2021. The original motion to dismiss was terminated, and on Sept. 22, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs is now seeking a review of the order entered by the District Court. The appellate case is captioned as Carl v. Hilcorp Energy, Case No. 22-20226, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Anne Carl, as Co-Trustees of the CARL/WHITE TRUST, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons; and Anderson White, as Co-Trustees of the CARL/WHITE TRUST, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. SHARP LAW, L.L.P. 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com Defendant-Appellee Hilcorp Energy Company is represented by: Stephen Burton Crain, Esq. BRACEWELL, L.L.P. 711 Louisiana Street S. Pennzoil Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-1305 E-mail: stephen.crain@bracewell.com HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Discloses Settlement Home Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- westernmassnews.com reports that state officials have announced a multi-million dollar settlement in a class action lawsuit following the COVID-19 outbreak at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home. The Baker-Polito Administration said that the $56 million settlement will cover veterans who lived at the Holyoke facility any time between March 1, 2020 and June 23, 2020 and who became ill or died from COVID-19 during that period. Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement: "The COVID-19 outbreak at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home was a terrible tragedy. While we know nothing can bring back those who were lost, we hope that this settlement brings a sense of closure to the loved ones of the veterans." Estates of the deceased veterans would receive a minimum settlement of $400,000 and veterans who contracted COVID-19, but survived, would receive a minimum settlement of $10,000. The fund will also provide for payment of court-approved attorney's fees. Former U.S. Attorney Donald Stern will serve as administrator for the settlement claims and will make awards to participating claimants based on a review of individual circumstances. Attorney Tom Lesser, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement: "There is no amount of money that can compensate our clients for the loss of their loved ones. But our clients are grateful that the Commonwealth has acted to resolve this matter without the need for protracted litigation by agreeing to compensate both the families of those who died of COVID, as well as the veterans who survived. The settlement is fair and just." Baker is expected to file legislation for $56 million for the claims fund in the coming weeks. The settlement is subject to approval by a federal judge. Western Mass News will continue to follow this story and will have more information as it becomes available.[GN] HOMEDELIVERYLINK INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Kloppel Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE KLOPPEL and ADAM WILSON, v. HOMEDELIVERYLINK, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-06296-FPG-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. entered an order: -- granting HDL's motion to seal; -- granting HDL's motion to decertify the class; and -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may continue this action on behalf of themselves, only, and they may refile a motion for summary judgment as to them. By May 25, 2022, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice notifying the former class members that the class has been decertified and explaining their rights to pursue their individual claims and the fact that the statute of limitations is no longer tolled." The Plaintiffs Mike Kloppel and Adam Wilson filed the class action on May 9, 2017, alleging that Sears Holding and HomeDeliveryLink (HDL) misclassified them as independent contractors and took deductions from their wages in violation of New York Labor Law (NYLL). On July 7, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order granting Sears’s motion to dismiss in full and granting in part and denying in part HDL's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. HDL filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and, on November 18, 2019, the Court granted HDL's motion in part, dismissing Plaintiffs' claim for illegal kickback of wages under NYLL. The only surviving claims are against HDL for (1) illegal deductions pursuant to NYLL section 193 and (2) record-keeping violations pursuant to NYLL section 195. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and HDL moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. On June 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and denied HDL's motion for summary judgment. The Court approved a class notice, the notices were distributed to class members, and the case proceeded to class discovery. Class discovery has now concluded. On September 7, 2021, HDL filed a motion to decertify the class action, and a motion to seal a document in support of that motion, The following day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that they are "employees" of HDL for purposes of the NYLL. On September 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike HDL's motion to decertify. The parties have fully briefed all four motions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3svvAK8 at no extra charge.[CC] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 24 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until June 24, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR, IIPR-PA), if they purchased the Company's securities between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Get Help Innovative Industrial investors should visit us at https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-iipr/ or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options. About the Lawsuit Innovative Industrial and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a real estate investment trust (REIT); (ii) the true values of the Company's properties are significantly lower than represented; (iii) the Company's top customers experienced significant issues; (iv) as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue making payments to the Company and it would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the price of the Company's shares fell, damaging investors. The case is Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., et al., No. 22-cv- 2359. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mark Habelt filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark Habelt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. and Kevin M. King, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00776, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, filed on February 1, 2021, seeks to recover damages caused by violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. iRhythm is a digital healthcare company that uses wearable biosensing technology with cloudbased data analytics to provide ambulatory cardiac monitoring services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "IRTC." iRhythm receives revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payers, which include commercial payers and government agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). iRhythm allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that its business would suffer as a result of the CMS' December 1, 2020 announcement of a rate cut. Shares opened on December 2, 2020 at $183.00 each, down from the December 1, 2020 close of $240.64. iRhythm's common stock closed at $168.42, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00. Shares traded intraday as low as $135.65 each. The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately $2.4 billion. On October 27, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint which the Court granted on March 31, 2022 through an Order and Judgment entered by Judge Edward M. Chen. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Mark Habelt, et al. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15660, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mark Habelt Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 9, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 2, 2022; -- Transcript is due on July 1, 2022; -- Appellant Mark Habelt opening brief is due on August 8, 2022; -- Appellees Michael J. Coyle, Douglas J. Devine, Kevin M. King and iRhythm Technologies, Inc. answering brief is due on September 8, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARK HABELT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq. Jacob Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com - and - Omar Jafri, Esq. Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. Christopher Tourek, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 10 S LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 E-mail: ojafri@pomlaw.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com Defendants-Appellees IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., KEVIN M. KING, MICHAEL J. COYLE, and DOUGLAS J. DEVINE are represented by: Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com IRONNET INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 21 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Attention Ironnet, Inc. ("Ironnet") (NYSE: IRNT) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Ironnet, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ironnet-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26539&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Ironnet includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had materially overstated its business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was unable to predict the timing of significant customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of its publicly- issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (iii) the Company had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate, complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false, misleading, and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times. DEADLINE: June 21, 2022 Aggrieved Ironnet investors only have until June 21, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03767 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. John Paul Mitchell Systems -- https://www.paulmitchell.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools through several brands including Paul Mitchell, Tea Tree, and MITCH.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bids to Quash Subpoenas in Hall Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the non-parties' motions to quash subpoenas in the lawsuits titled, FRANK HALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. WILLIAM LONGO, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendant. SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 18-1833 (GC), 21-20040 (FLW), 22-658 (GC) (D.N.J.). The matter comes before the Court upon non-parties' (Levy Konigsberg LLP ("Levy"), Moshe Maimon ("Maimon"), Hobson & Bradley, William Longo ("Longo"), the Smith Law Firm, PLLC (the "Smith Firm"), and Robert Allen Smith, Jr. ("Smith")), motions to quash subpoenas issued to them by Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), seeking information alleged to be relevant to the securities class action lawsuit, Hall v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. 18-1833 (GC) ("Hall" or the "Hall matter"), pending in the District of New Jersey. J&J opposes all of the non-parties' motions to quash. The Court has reviewed all arguments raised in favor of and in opposition to the motions to quash. The Court considers the motions to quash without argument pursuant to L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). I. Background The subpoenas at issue in the pending motions all relate to J&J's attempt to obtain discovery allegedly relevant to the claims at issue in the Hall matter. Hall is a putative class action securities litigation in which Lead Plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ("Plaintiff"), and other similarly situated investors, purchased J&J stock between February 2013 and October 2018, and claim that J&J, and the named Individual Defendants, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. In Hall, the Plaintiff also alleges that the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). As explained by the District Court in its decision on J&J and the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff asserted that these violations occurred when, the "Defendants fraudulently inflated the value of J&J's stock by issuing false and misleading statements as part of a longrunning scheme to conceal the truth from investors that the Company's talc products were contaminated with asbestos, and that the Plaintiff and other investors relied on these material misrepresentations and omissions to their detriment." The subpoenas at issue are essentially identical. Those issued to Levy and Maimon seek the following three categories of information: 1. All Communications, including any correspondence or Documents exchanged, between Levy Konigsberg LLP[/You], and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 2. All notes, transcripts, memoranda, documents, and uncut recordings (whether visual, audio, or otherwise) concerning any Communications, discussions, or interviews between Levy Konigsberg LLP and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 3. Documents sufficient to reflect Your document retention or destruction polices or procedures. The subpoena issued to Hobson and Bradley seeks: 1. All Communications, including any correspondence or Documents exchanged, between Hobson & Bradley and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 2. All notes, transcripts, memoranda, documents, and uncut recordings (whether visual, audio, or otherwise) concerning any Communications, discussions, or interviews between Hobson & Bradley and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 3. Documents sufficient to reflect Your document retention or destruction polices or procedures. Likewise, the subpoena to Longo seeks: 1. All Communications, including any correspondence or Documents exchanged, between You and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Power Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, or the Reuters Articles. 2. All notes, transcripts, memoranda, documents, and uncut recordings (whether visual, audio, or otherwise) concerning any Communications, discussions, or interviews between You and any Media Organizations, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to J&J, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, or the Reuters Articles. 3. Documents sufficient to reflect Your document retention or destruction policies or procedures. Finally, the subpoenas issued to the Smith Firm and Smith seek: 1. All Communications, including any correspondence or Documents exchanged, between The Smith Law Firm[/You], and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 2. All notes, transcripts, memoranda, documents, and uncut recordings (whether visual, audio, or otherwise) concerning any Communications, discussions, or interviews between The Smith Law Firm and any Media Organization, including Reuters and Lisa Girion, concerning or relating to Johnson & Johnson, J&J Talcum Powder Products, asbestos, Dr. David Egilman, Dr. William Longo, or the Reuters Articles. 3. Documents sufficient to reflect Your document retention or destruction policies or procedures. The non-parties raise several arguments in support of their motions to quash, arguing that the information being sought is protected by the First Amendment, claiming that enforcing the subpoenas would impose an undue burden on them, contending that the information sought is not relevant, and arguing that J&J is improperly targeting attorneys who continue to litigate personal injury cases against it. J&J, however, claims that the subpoenas are not being pursued for an improper purpose, seek relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the underlying Hall case, and not protected by the First Amendment. Further, J&J argues that if the Court finds some aspect of the subpoenas to be objectionable, the subpoenas should not be quashed, but instead modified. II. Analysis In determining whether the aforementioned subpoenas should be quashed, enforced or modified, Judge Bongiovanni examined whether the discovery sought through the subpoenas falls within the permissible scope of discovery in federal litigation. She finds that while J&J contends that discovery concerning the influence product liability lawyers and/or their experts had over the alleged "corrective disclosures" is relevant to the three elements of the Plaintiff's securities fraud claim -- falsity, reliance, and loss causation -- its conclusory statement to this effect does not make it so. Instead, it is hard to see what bearing non-public statements made by the product liability lawyers and/or their experts have on (1) the veracity of J&J's statements; (2) whether the information outlined in the alleged "corrective disclosures" is true; or (3) whether the information set forth in the "corrective disclosures" is new. And, again, J&J fails to cite a single case requiring similar discovery under analogous circumstances. As a result, Judge Bongiovanni finds that J&J has failed to establish the relevance of the discovery sought in their subpoenas. While not part of her analysis, her findings are also bolstered by the fact that J&J has not, as certain of the non-parties note, sought discovery from all counsel involved in the talc litigation against J&J. If the discovery was as critical as J&J suggests, Judge Bongiovanni would have expected a less selective issuance of subpoenas. Given the lack of relevance, modifying the subpoenas would serve no purpose. As such, she grants the motions to quash in full. To the extent J&J does not already have access to the media reports claimed to be "corrective disclosures" as well as the documents cited therein, Judge Bongiovanni encourages J&J to request that the Plaintiff in the Hall matter identify and produce same. III. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Bongiovanni grants the non-parties' motion to quash. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/7hju6ny4 from Leagle.com. KIEWIT CORP: Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Avila Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN AVILA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KIEWIT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01295-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Steve Kim entered an order setting pretrial deadlines pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant as follows: 1. Initial disclosures: August 15, 2022 2. Rebuttal disclosures: September 13, 2022 3. Non-Expert Discovery cut-off: September 13, 2022 4. Expert Discovery cut-off: If Plaintiff offers an expert with his class certification brief, Defendant may depose that expert prior to serving its opposition brief; if Defendant offers an expert with its opposition to class certification, Plaintiff may depose that expert prior to serving his reply brief. The final expert discovery cut- off for class certification purposes shall be December 13, 2022. 5. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a November 29, 2022 Motion for Class Certification: 6. Defendant’s deadline to file an December 19, 2022 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: 7. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a December 30, 2022 Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: Kiewit is an American privately held construction company based in Omaha, Nebraska founded in 1884. In 2021, it was ranked 243rd on the Fortune 500. Privately held, it is one of the largest construction and engineering organizations in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L8OL2G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com mariam.ghazaryan@moonyanglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Arthur Rooney, Esq. Lara Grines, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60603-5559 Telephone: (312) 324-8400 Facsimile: (312) 324-9400 E-mail: ARooney@perkinscoie.com LGrines@perkinscoie.com KROGER CO: Court Refuses to Strike Class Allegations in Womick Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY WOMICK, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.). Background Plaintiff Womick alleges that Kroger manufactures, packages, advertises, distributes, and sells various types of ground coffee under its own private label brand in canisters. Kroger represents the number of cups that can be made depends on the size of the canisters: * The 11.5-ounce (326 g.) canisters represent they can make about 90 cups; * The 24-ounce (680 g.) canister represent they can make about 185 cups; * The 25-ounce (708 g.) canisters represent they can make about 195 cups; * The 29-ounce (822 g.) canisters represent they can make about 225 cups; and * The 30.5-ounce (864 g.) canisters represent they can make about 235 cups. Brewing instructions on the back of Kroger's canisters provide two methods: (1) to make one cup, the directions state the consumer is to use one rounded tablespoon of coffee for each six fluid ounces of cold water; and (2) to make ten cups, the consumer is to use a half cup of coffee. Mr. Womick asserts these representations are false even when following Kroger's brewing instructions. Following Kroger's instruction to use one rounded tablespoon, the 30.5-ounce canisters "will produce no more than, and probably less than," approximately 173 cups of coffee, not 235 cups as the canister indicated. He provided a table showing the maximum number of cups Kroger represents can be made using the one-cup method, compared to the actual maximum number that the canister will make using a 5-gram, not rounded, tablespoon, along with the difference (number of cups the consumer paid for but did not receive). Under the alternative instructions for making ten cups of coffee, Womick claims the Class Products also fail to make the number of cups represented on the canister. Assuming one tablespoon of ground coffee weighs five grams, there are eight tablespoons in a half cup, meaning a half cup of ground coffee weighs forty grams. Womick provided another table to demonstrate that Kroger's 10-cup instruction produces less than the amount represented on the canister. Mr. Womick alleges that he regularly purchased Kroger's 29 oz. and 30.5 oz. products from 2020-2021. Prior to making these purchases, Womick read the representation on the label regarding the number of cups that could be made from Kroger's products, and at all times, he believed and had a reasonable expectation that the labeling on the products was truthful and accurate. Womick proclaims he typically followed Kroger's 10-serving instructions when making coffee. Finally, Womick claims that, as a direct result of Kroger's misrepresentations of the number of cups that can be made from its products, he has been deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing these products because the products had less value than represented. Mr. Womick brings a class action with three claims against Kroger: (1) Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act ("ICFA") By Means of Unfair Business Practices; (2) Violation of the ICFA By Means of Deceptive Acts or Practices; and (3) Unjust Enrichment. Kroger moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to dismiss was granted as to injunctive relief, but denied as to Kroger's remaining arguments. Kroger answered Womick's complaint--but on the same day--moved to strike the class allegations in Womick's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(a), and 23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Analysis A. Kroger Answered Plaintiff's Complaint Before Filing the Motion to Strike Under Rule 12, the Court may strike from a pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). Mr. Womick argues that Kroger's motion to strike is time-barred. The Court disagrees. Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel explains that Rule 12(f)(1) does not impose any time constraint on courts like it does on parties in Rule 12(f)(2), so courts read that omission to mean they may consider a motion to strike at any point in a case, citing Red Label Music Publ'g, Inc. v. Chila Prods., 388 F.Supp.3d 975, 981 (N.D. Ill. 2019). B. Commonality Requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) Kroger argues that Womick's purported "common questions" do not meet the commonality requirement because Womick seeks to "certify one class that consists of all individuals in Illinois 'who purchased one or more of the Class Product in Illinois during the Class Period.'" Kroger continues, Womick's claims will require proof as to forty-five different products (nine coffee types x five sizes) to determine whether each labeling was unfair or deceptive. Kroger reasons whether one size coffee canister's advertised approximate yield is deceptive does not affect whether another size coffee canister's advertised approximate yield is deceptive. In Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court's analysis did not focus on the possibility that the plaintiff's claims would require proof as to the different washing machines sold in overlapping periods beginning in 2001 and 2004. Instead, the Court noted "[t]here is a single, central, common issue of liability: whether the Sears washing machine was defective." Similarly, one of the common issues of liability will likely include "whether following the common brewing instructions on the Class Products can produce the number of cups of coffee that Kroger represents on the front of the canister." C. Predominance Requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) Next, Kroger insists that Womick fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common questions 'predominate' over individual ones. Kroger asserts that the determination of whether the labels are deceptive to a reasonable consumer will necessarily require the Court to make individual determinations concerning the 'totality of the information made available' to each putative class member and that individual's understanding of the coffee canister labels. Kroger is not only jumping the gun, but also Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2008)--the case Kroger relies on--is inapplicable, Judge Rosenstengel holds. In Thorogood, the plaintiff alleged the words "stainless steel" imprinted on the dryer were deceptive, "unless the drum is made entirely of stainless steel, since if it is not it may rust and cause rust stains on the clothes in the dryer." Kroger asserts the same is true in this case. But unlike the plaintiff in Thorogood, where there was no single understanding of the significance of labeling or advertising stainless steel drums, here the single understanding of the significance in Kroger's labeling is "that if the product's own brewing instructions are followed, the canisters will make roughly the number of cups of coffee prominently displayed on the packaging," Judge Rosenstengel opines. D. Adequacy Requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) Kroger's arguments regarding Womick's adequacy illustrate why its motion to strike is premature, Judge Rosenstengel holds. Specifically, Kroger asserts Womick is "not an adequate class representative because he cannot show that his lawsuit will provide consumers anything beyond what is already theirs for the asking." According to Kroger, its "ground coffee retails for far less than toy products in Aqua Dots ($17 to $30) and the flu remedy in Conrad ($12 to $20)." Kroger then concludes that since the Plaintiff may seek only an average refund of 18%, his recovery is limited to approximately $1.26 per canister purchased. Given the high litigation costs that will be involved in this matter (consumer surveys, expert witnesses, class notice, and attorneys' fees), it is inevitable that the costs of litigation will swallow all of any potential recovery. Indeed, a review of Conrad v. Boiron, Inc., 869 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2017), In re Aqua Dots Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011), and Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014), reveals why Kroger's adequacy arguments jump the gun, Judge Rosenstengel notes. In Conrad, 869 F.3d at 540, the record before the Court showed that the plaintiffs were protected not only by a prior class action settlement covering the product, but also by the defendant's refund process. The plaintiffs in Conrad attempted to differentiate the defendant's refund process to the recall in Aqua Dots. The Court concluded, however, that the defendant's refund process "is comparable to the process we accepted in Aqua Dots." The Court found that "there was enough information in the record to permit the district court to spot the similarities with Aqua Dots and to conclude that [the] case [was] not suitable for class treatment." Unlike the amount of evidence regarding the defendant's refund process in Conrad, there is little information in the record on Kroger's refund process, Judge Rosenstengel notes. Kroger apparently has an offer to provide customers a refund if they are not satisfied with their purchase and it is clearly displayed on each Kroger-brand coffee canister. This may be true, but there is neither information in the record to determine whether Womick is seeking the exact same refund amount that Kroger offers, nor evidence that Kroger has implemented a widescale refund program, Judge Rosenstengel points out. The other case discussed within Conrad, 869 F.3d 536--Eubank, 753 F.3d 718--was about a class action settlement agreement. As far as the Court can tell, there is no class action settlement agreement between Kroger and Womick. Without a class action settlement agreement, the Court cannot evaluate whether the potential class action would be a racket because it yields zero benefits for the proposed class. Besides Kroger's premature adequacy arguments, Judge Rosenstengel holds that Kroger cannot moot Womick's claims by offering an unaccepted refund. E. The Complaint's Class Definition Kroger's final argument is that Womick's class definition is overbroad because it includes individuals, who did not rely on the allegedly deceptive labels when purchasing the Kroger-brand coffee canisters. At this stage, the Court cannot conclude that Kroger's proposed class is overbroad or unascertainable. As discovery progresses, the class definition may need refinement--but striking the allegation at this stage would be improper because it provides Kroger with notice of the class Womick will seek to certify. Conclusion For these reasons, the Motion to Strike filed by The Kroger Co. is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bde64ajd from Leagle.com. LAKEVIEW LOAN: Riley Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LOLETA RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-004978, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Souther District of Florida on April 29, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60833 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from an alleged data security incident. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, operates as a mortgage finance company. The Company offers loans re-financing options.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com LYFT INC: Bid for Class Certification Discovery Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 7:17-cv-06251 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion regarding class certification discovery. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. Lyft is an American transport service support provider that develops, markets, and operates a mobile app, offering ride-hailing, vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food delivery.[CC] M.U. CONSULTANTS: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- Paola V. Parra and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. M.U. Consultants L.L.C., and Usman Tanveer, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00823-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2022) is an action against the Defendants to recover money damages for Plaintiff's unpaid regular overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired as a Covid-19 testing technician from February 21, 2022, to March 15, 2022. She worked 66 hours per week, and she performed between 30 and 50 tests per day. However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for her services at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff complained verbally to Usman Tanveer for the third time about the lack of payment for regular and overtime wages. As a result of Plaintiff's complaints, the next day, Defendant Tanveer fired Plaintiff, alleging pretextual reasons. M.U. Consultants L.L.C. is a for-profit organization providing health-related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MANYMAR CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mendoza Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenifer L. Mendoza, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Manymar Corporation, d/b/a Quality Print Center, Manuel D. Hidalgo Jr., and Manuel D. Hidalgo Sr., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21350 (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2022) is an action against the Defendants to recover money damages for Plaintiff's unpaid half-time overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a customer service and office clerk employee from April 13, 2020, to February 14, 2022. Based in Miami, Florida, Manymar Corporation, d/b/a Quality Print Center, is a printing and marketing company providing its services to commercial accounts and to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MASSACHUSETTS: Settles Suit Over COVID Outbreak in Care Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Pratt at Associated Press reports that Massachusetts has agreed to pay $56 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the families of veterans who died or became sick after contracting COVID-19 at a state-run veterans' care center during one of the deadliest outbreaks at a long-term care facility in the U.S., officials said. The families of 84 veterans who died during the outbreak at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home will receive a minimum of $400,000 each, while 84 veterans who contracted the disease and survived will receive a minimum of $10,000 under terms of the settlement that still requires a federal judge's approval. "The suit contends that what happened at the Soldiers' Home was so severe that it rose to the level of a deprivation of the veterans' constitutional rights to be free from harms recklessly created by the government," Tom Lesser, one of the families' attorneys, said in a statement. "No amount of money can bring back the veterans who died or erase the pain and suffering that this tragedy needlessly caused those veterans and their families, but justice required that those wrongs not go unaddressed," he said. "This settlement recognizes that the tragedy was preventable and never should have happened." The number of COVID-19 deaths had previously been reported at about 76, but the higher number reflects further investigation by the state and includes veterans who contracted the disease but did not have it listed as a cause of death on their death certificate, Michael Aleo, another of the plaintiffs' lawyers said. Former U.S. Attorney Donald Stern will serve as the settlement claims administrator and determine how much each family will receive. The terms of the settlement will cover veterans who lived at the facility at any time between March 1, 2020 and June 23, 2020 and who became ill or died from COVID-19 during that period. The settlement amount also covers attorneys' fees. Gov. Charlie Baker plans to file legislation seeking $56 million for the claims fund in the coming weeks. "The COVID-19 outbreak at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home was a terrible tragedy. While we know nothing can bring back those who were lost, we hope that this settlement brings a sense of closure to the loved ones of the veterans," Baker said in a statement. The coronavirus tore through the home in the spring of 2020 infecting both residents and staff. An investigation by a former federal prosecutor hired by Baker found that management made several "utterly baffling" decisions that allowed the virus to spread almost unchecked, such as combining two locked dementia units, both of which already housed some residents with the virus. As many as 40 residents were placed in a space designed for 25. The suit was originally filed in July 2020 by the family of Joseph Sniadach, an 84-year-old Korean War veteran who died at the home on April 27, 2020. Other veterans and their families were later added. The defendants were four former leaders at the home and the state Secretary of Health and Human Services, the state agency that oversees the facility. Claims against five will be dropped when the settlement is approved. The outbreak led to criminal neglect charges against the home's former superintendent and medical director, but the charges were dismissed by a judge last year. The state attorney general has appealed. The state Inspector General last month released a report saying the superintendent at the time of the outbreak should not have been hired in the first place because he lacked the temperament and skills to run such a facility. The state has announced plans to build a new $400 million home to replace the current 240-bed facility that was built in the early 1950s. [GN] MDL 24009: FCA Seeks Oral Argument on Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNN, et al., v. TAKATA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24009-FAM (S.D. Fla.), FCA US LLC asks the Court for an oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant said, "It is undisputed that Takata admitted to defrauding FCA (and other OEMs) regarding the efficacy of its non-desiccated airbag inflators sold to them. Once that fraud was uncovered, FCA undertook herculean efforts to reach the owners of vehicles that contained such airbags to replace them in careful coordination with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. FCA has now replaced over 72% of all such airbags. Against this backdrop, some Plaintiffs in this multi-state class action claim that FCA misled them at the point of purchase of their vehicles by failing to disclose that their vehicle's non-desiccated airbags would need to be replaced in the future. Others also sued yet had no interaction with FCA at all when they purchased their vehicles. Each Named Plaintiff testified that they had not experienced any problems with their airbags, and that they had accepted or were given an offer from FCA to replace their non-desiccated airbags for free. Seeking to press alleged economic damages claims, however, Plaintiffs seek to certify state class actions under multiple theories of consumer fraud, common law fraud, breach of implied warranties, and negligence. Abandoning all nationwide and injunctive relief class claims, Plaintiffs focus on Florida, requesting to certify a bellwether class and alternatively suggest combining all class actions in a hopelessly confused set of groups and sub-groups." The Defendant continued that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class must be denied for several independent reasons: First, several Plaintiffs lack standing to sue FCA. Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to represent individuals that purchased different makes, models, and model years then those that they own and bring claims under statutes under which they do not have standing to sue. Second, Plaintiffs' class definition is overbroad and vague, violating Rule 23's ascertainability requirement. Third, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements of commonality, typicality and adequacy of certain class representatives. Fourth, Plaintiffs – having abandoned their request to certify an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) -- seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Lastly, Plaintiffs' proposal to bunch 14 state class actions, raising 38 claims, covering six recalls, 16 models, and over 100 different model years is not superior or manageable. FCA's recalls and individual consumer actions are a superior method of resolving Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs' Motion primarily seeks to impress their view that FCA should have known about Takata's falsification of its airbag test data and the risks involved in its non-desiccated inflators sooner. This motion relates to all cases in MDL 24004 RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pk1CTk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Scott M. Sarason, Esq. RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000 80 Southwest 8th Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 995-5422 Facsimile: (786) 536-3446 E-mail: ssarason@rumberger.com - and - Daniel T. Graham, Esq. Michael P. Croghan, Esq. Jeffrey M. Sniadanko, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 130 E. Randolph Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 985-5945 (Graham) Facsimile: (312) 985-5954 (Graham) E-mail: dgraham@clarkhill.com mcroghan@clarkhill.com jsniadanko@clarkhill.com - and - John E. Berg, Esq. Jay M. Berger, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-8417 Facsimile: (313) 309-6817 E-mail: jberg@clarkhill.com jberger@clarkhill.com MDL 2879: Classes Certified in Consumer Data Security Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. CONSUMER ACTIONS, MDL No. 19-md-2879 (D. Md.), Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes for monetary damages, liability issues, and injunctive relief. I. Introduction The case involves consolidated class action claims filed by consumers against Marriott and Accenture related to a data breach of the Marriott-owned Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Inc. It is part of the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Grimm concerning the data breach. The Consumer Plaintiffs and Defendants Marriott and Accenture selected 10 "bellwether" claims to test the sufficiency of the pleadings, which include tort, contract, and statutory claims under the laws of various states. Following the resolution of the Defendants' motions to dismiss, nine bellwether claims remain. The Plaintiffs now move to certify classes for monetary damages, liability issues, and injunctive relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4), and 23(b)(2), respectively. II. Background On Nov. 30, 2018, Marriott announced that it was the target of one of the largest data breaches in history. The breach took place in its Starwood guest reservation database. Marriott International acquired Starwood Hotels and Resorts in September 2016. When guests make a reservation to stay at a Marriott property, they must provide personal information including name, address, email address, phone number, and payment card information. In some instances, Marriott also collects passport information, room preferences, travel destinations, and other personal information. Both Marriott and Starwood had privacy statements, dated May 18, 2018 and Oct. 5, 2014 respectively, concerning their collection and use of this personal information and touting their ability to protect the security of this sensitive information. Investigations into the data breach indicated that for over four years, from July 2014 to September 2018, hackers had access to Starwood's guest information database -- the "New" Data Storage ("NDS") database. In other words, the data breach was ongoing before and after Marriott's acquisition of Starwood. During the data breach, the hackers exported customers' personally identifiable information ("PII"). Marriott discovered the breach on Sept. 8, 2018 when Accenture reported an anomaly pertaining to the NDS database. In total, the breach impacted approximately 133.7 million guest records associated with the United States, including an estimated 47.7 million records associated with the bellwether states. The Plaintiffs are consumers who provided their PII to Marriott to stay at a Starwood property or use Starwood's services before the data breach. They allege that Marriott and Accenture are liable for the data breach under theories of tort, contract, and breach of statutory duties. The gravamen of these allegations is that Marriott and Accenture failed to take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiffs' personal information against the foreseeable risk of a cyberattack and, in the case of Marriott, contrary to its express privacy statements and statutory duties. Pending is the Plaintiffs' motion to certify 13 damages classes and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3), various liability issues under Rule 23(c)(4); and a class for injunctive or declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2). III. Discussion The Plaintiffs move to certify classes for monetary damages under Rule 23(b)(3), for liability issues under Rule 23(c)(4), and for injunctive or declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2). Before addressing the requirements for these specific class action types, Judge Grimm addresses standing and the explicit, as well as implicit, Rule 23(a) prerequisites that are applicable to all class action types. A. Standing Judge Grimm is persuaded that the pleading-stage burden applies until summary judgment. The Plaintiffs need not demonstrate that every class member has standing at the class certification stage. Undoubtedly, the Defendants will raise further challenges to the class representatives' standing in the litigation, but those challenges will have to wait until the summary judgment stage. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs must show that differences between class members as to standing -- i.e., the inclusion of uninjured individuals alongside injured ones in the class -- are not so significant that the class runs afoul of Rule 23. The proposed classes that do not limit membership to those who bore the economic burden for a hotel stay would surely include a large number of uninjured persons under the overpayment theory. Considering the information gathered from the bellwether Plaintiffs, Judge Grimm holds that it is a near certainty that the proposed class definitions include many individuals who solely traveled to Starwood hotels for work and, therefore, have no hotel stays for which they were not reimbursed. As a result, sizeable portions of the various classes have differing legal arguments as to standing, undoing the cohesiveness of the classes and preventing common questions of law from predominating. Essentially, this predominance analysis shows that the aforementioned proposed classes are overbroad on the issue of standing. All classes proceeding under the overpayment theory will only include persons who bore the economic burden for hotel room(s). This change will exclude those individuals who are uninjured under the overpayment theory from being class members. In addition to this refinement, Judge Grimm also limits the classes proceeding under the overpayment theory to individuals who made reservations at Starwood properties during the four-and-a-half-year period (2014-2018) in which hackers had access to the Plaintiffs' PII. This change merely corrects an oversight by the Plaintiffs' Counsel when writing the proposed class definitions related to the overpayment theory. B. Rule 23(a) Prerequisites A class action must first meet the prerequisites of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), a class action must fit one of the categories in Rule 23(b): predominance and superiority. Judge Grim, finds that (i) while the potential class sizes here are large and review of individual files will be required, the Plaintiffs have adequately shown that any review in the case is administratively feasible and not the kind of administrative review that would preclude ascertainability; (ii) the Plaintiffs' reasonable estimate satisfies the numerosity requirement; (iii) the common answers to the common questions of fact will ultimately generate yet more common answers to common questions of law -- i.e., whether the Defendants failed to adequately protect customers' PII such that they breached a duty or contract or violated a state consumer protection statute; and (iv) the actions show the named Plaintiffs' commitment to representing the class. However, Judge Grimm opines that the negligence and consumer protection classes, as currently defined, do not satisfy the typicality requirement. Nevertheless, he amends the class definitions to address this typicality problem. C. Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Classes The Plaintiffs seek to certify a total of thirteen classes and subclasses for damages. The classes are grouped into three categories, which I will refer to as the Negligence Classes, the Contract Classes, and the Consumer Protection Classes. These classes correspond to the remaining bellwether claims. Some of the putative classes seek relief from both Marriott and Accenture, while others seek relief from either Marriott or Accenture only. Pursuant to these proposed classes, Plaintiffs seek classwide damages related to overpayment for hotel stays, the loss of the market value of their PII, statutory damages, and nominal damages. a. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Negligence Classes: a. Florida Negligence Class (Against Marriott and Accenture): All natural persons residing in Florida whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are Irma Lawrence, Michaela Bittner, and Kathleen Frakes Hevener. b. Georgia Negligence Per Se Class (Against Marriott and Accenture): All natural persons residing in Georgia whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are Brent Long and David Viggiano. c. Maryland Negligence Class (Against Accenture Only): All natural persons residing in Maryland whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Peter Maldini. d. Connecticut Negligence Class (Against Accenture Only): All natural persons residing in Connecticut whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Anne Marie Amarena. e. Connecticut Negligence Per Se Class (Against Accenture Only): All natural persons residing in Connecticut whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Anne Marie Amarena. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Contract Classes: a. Maryland Breach of Contract Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in Maryland who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Peter Maldini. b. Maryland Breach of Contract Benefit of the Bargain Subclass (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in Maryland who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and who paid for a stay at a Starwood property and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Peter Maldini. c. New York Breach of Contract Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in New York who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are: Roger Cullen, Eric Fishon, and Paula O'Brien. d. New York Breach of Contract Benefit of the Bargain Subclass (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in New York who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and who paid for a stay at a Starwood property and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making `of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced b The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Consumer Protection Classes: a. California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in California who paid for a stay at a Starwood property and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are Robert Guzikowski, Denitrice Marks, and Maria Maisto. b. Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in Maryland who paid for a stay at a Starwood property and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representative is Peter Maldini. c. Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA) Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in Michigan whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are Bryan Wallace and Laura Gononian. d. New York General Business Law (GBL) Class (Against Marriott Only): All natural persons residing in New York who paid for a stay at a Starwood property and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. The proposed Class Representatives are: Roger Cullen, Eric Fishon, and Paula O'Brien. Each of these proposed classes must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Before turning to those requirements, however, Judge Grimm first address the applicability of the Plaintiffs' two classwide theories of harm to the analysis. The Plaintiffs assert that two theories of harm support the certification of "full" damages classes. First, they argue that their overpayment theory is consistent with classwide damages. Second, they assert that their loss of market value of PII theory is consistent with classwide damages. Judge Grimm holds that the emergence of Marriott's own valuation of customers' PII, and the undeveloped nature of the record on the issue; he denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to damages (and liability) classes that would rely on the loss of market value theory. Following the issuance of this opinion and its accompanying order, he will schedule a call with the parties to discuss issues related to Marriott's valuation of customers' PII. He will ask the Plaintiffs to further describe what discovery they seek on these issues and the mechanics of the discovery. He will hear from the Defendants as well and schedule further communications with the parties as needed. With the loss of market value theory presently excluded as a theory of harm, the remaining Rule 23(b)(3) analysis will focus on the overpayment theory. After weighing all the arguments, Judge Grimm states that these issues do not defeat predominance for the overpayment theory -- at least for a majority of the putative classes for which that theory is applicable. First, these individuals suffered no injury and had no standing under the overpayment theory. Consequently, legal issues of standing would defeat predominance. Second, because all the class members are subject to this same form contract, common questions predominate -- i.e., "the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing" of breach of contract, or at least "the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof." Establishing breach will similarly rely upon the same evidence for each class member. Third, Judge Grimm finds that the predominance requirement as to liability for the New York GBL Section 349 class is satisfied. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs need not show reliance reduces the possibility that individualized inquiries will outweigh common issues; the Plaintiffs fail to adequately demonstrate that common issues will predominate as to liability for the ITPA class; and (iii) the predominance requirement as to liability for the MCPA class and the New York GBL Section 349 class is satisfied. Fourth, Judge Grimm opines that the model works independently of the Plaintiffs' other theories of harm and it has isolated the overpayment damages from the other types of damages that they seek. Fifth, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance requirement as to statutory damages under Section 349 because the Defendants' arguments regarding individualization are no more successful in the statutory damages context. Finally, the Defendants do not challenge predominance as to nominal damages based on the calculation method so the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance requirement as to nominal damages. Turning to superiority, Judge Grimm opines that a Rule 23(b)(3) class action is "superior to the other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating" the case. D. Rule 23(c)(4) Issues Classes a. Proposed Issues Classes The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following issues: (i) Were Marriott or Accenture Negligent?: Did they owe a common law duty to the class?; Did they breach that duty?; Did the breach of that duty cause harm to the class?; (ii) Were Marriott or Accenture Negligent Per Se; Did they owe a statutory duty to the class?; Did they breach that duty?; Did the breach of that duty cause harm to the class?; (iii) Did Marriott and Starwood breach their contracts?: Did the companies' Privacy Policies create contractual obligations?; Did the companies breach those obligations?; Did those breaches cause harm?; and (iv) Did Marriott violate state consumer protection statutes?: Did Marriott and Starwood make actionable representations or omissions about their security?; Did they fail to meet those representations?; and Did those failures cause harm? As the Court has certified Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes pertaining to the breach of contract and consumer protection claims, separately certifying questions related to Issues 3 and 4 -- as well as their sub-issues -- under Rule 23(c)(4) is unnecessary at this time. Those issues will be resolved in the Rule 23(b)(3) context anyway. However, Judge Grimm must still consider whether to certify the negligence-related liability issues, i.e., Issues 1 and 2 -- as well as their sub-issues. Given that (1) the overpayment theory is inapplicable to Accenture, (2) Dr. Prince's inherent value model has been excluded, and (3) nominal damages for the Plaintiffs' negligence claims are unavailable (at this time) without the classwide fact of injury provided by the loss of market value theory, Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification is the remaining classwide path for the Plaintiffs to take with regards to their negligence claims against Marriott and Accenture. As for these proposed liability issues, individualized damages like time spent responding to the data breach and out-of-pocket fraud losses are the relevant harms to bear in mind during the analysis -- not an overpayment or loss of market value injury. E. Injunctive or Declaratory Relief Class The Plaintiffs "seek certification of declaratory and injunctive relief claims, the substance of which will be reserved for a later time deemed appropriate by the Court," and "the opportunity to conduct discovery into data security measures" to determine the substance of the future injunction. The Defendants challenge certification arguing that the Plaintiffs cannot "offer the basic contours of the injunctive and declaratory relief." They also state that the Plaintiffs can offer no evidence of any "ongoing security inadequacies that would justify declaratory or injunctive relief," regarding the "retired and now safely offline" database containing the PII at issue. Judge Grimm finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish either the general contours of the injunctive relief requested beyond a general discontinuance statement or provide evidence of some present or likely future harm regarding the PII at issue to support declaratory relief either independently or as the basis for a future injunctive relief. IV. Conclusion In sum, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Judge Grimm acknowledges that the Court is one of the first to certify Rule 23(b)(3) classes involving individual consumers complaining of a data breach. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements as to several classes. Accordingly, Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(b)(3) damages class with respect to the Plaintiffs' Maryland breach of contract and MCPA claims: All natural persons residing in Maryland whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property in the United States, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about November 30, 2018, and who: (1) had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership, (2) bore the economic burden for the hotel stay, and (3) made the reservation from July 28, 2014 to Nov. 30, 2018. Peter Maldini will serve as the Class Representative. The Court also certified the following Rule 23(b)(3) damages class with respect the Plaintiffs' New York breach of contract and GBL Section 349 claims: All natural persons residing in New York whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property in the United States, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018, and who: (1) had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership, (2) bore the economic burden for the hotel stay, and (3) made the reservation from July 28, 2014 to Nov. 30, 2018. Roger Cullen, Eric Fishon, and Paula O'Brien will serve as the Class Representatives. Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(b)(3) damages class for the Plaintiffs' California UCL claim: All natural persons residing in California whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property in the United States, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018, and who: (1) had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership, (2) bore the economic burden for the hotel stay, and (3) made the reservation from July 28, 2014 to Nov. 30, 2018. Robert Guzikowski, Denitrice Marks, and Maria Maisto will serve as the Class Representatives. Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(c)(4) class as to the common law duty and breach issues relevant to the Plaintiffs' Florida negligence claims: All natural persons residing in Florida who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. Irma Lawrence, Michaela Bittner, and Kathleen Frakes Hevener will serve as the Class Representatives. Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(c)(4) class as to the common law duty and breach issues relevant to the Plaintiffs' Maryland negligence claims: All natural persons residing in Maryland who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. Peter Maldini will serve as the Class Representative. Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(c)(4) class as to the common law duty, statutory duty, and breach issues relevant to Plaintiffs' Connecticut negligence and negligence per se claims: All natural persons residing in Connecticut who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. Anne Marie Amarena will serve as the Class Representative. Judge Grimm certified the following Rule 23(c)(4) class as to the statutory law duty and breach issues relevant to Plaintiffs' Georgia negligence per se claims: All natural persons residing in Georgia who had a Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) membership and whose Personal Information, given to Starwood in connection with the making of a reservation at a Starwood property, was compromised in a data breach announced by Marriott on or about Nov. 30, 2018. Brent Long and David Viggiano will serve as the Class Representatives. Each of the class definitions incorporate the modifications that the Court previously discussed. Judge Grimm denied the motion to certify the Michigan ITPA damages class. He denied without damages (and liability) classes that rely on the loss of market value theory. He also denied without prejudice the motion to certify a class for injunctive or declaratory relief. Judge Grimm removed the interim designation and appoint the following individuals as Co-Lead Class Counsel: Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP. He also removed the interim designation for Consumer Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and Consumer Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. The individuals currently serving in those roles will continue doing so. The duties for Co-Lead Class Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and members of the Steering Committee remain the same as outlined in the case management order. As in that order, all the foregoing appointments are personal to the individual attorney appointed. Although the Court expects that the individual attorneys will draw upon their firms, including their firms' resources, to assist them with their duties, each individual attorney is personally responsible for his or her duties. The Court may add or replace individual attorneys, if and as circumstances warrant. A separate Order memorializing Judge Grimm's Opinion follows. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymzna4k2 from Leagle.com. MICHAELS STORES: Lizama Suit Remanded to St. Louis Circuit Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABRAHAM LIZAMA, Plaintiff v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01133-HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Facts and Background The lawsuit is a putative class action filed by the Plaintiff in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, on behalf of himself and all persons and entities who purchased a product from the Defendant through remote sales channels, including its internet website, that was delivered from an out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address and who were allegedly charged tax monies at a higher tax rate than the correct applicable use tax rate. According to the Petition, Missouri law requires retailers to charge sales or use tax on the sales of their products to Missouri purchasers. Missouri state law mandates that retailers with a tax nexus charge a use tax on sales of their products through remote means, including an internet website, telephone, catalog, or other remote communications systems (collectively, "remote sales channel(s)") to Missouri purchasers that are shipped from an out-of-state facility. The state use tax rate for these sales is 4.225%. The Petition also claims there may be additional local use taxes that are imposed on sales made through remote sales channels based on the delivery address of the Missouri purchasers. The state use tax rate of 4.225% plus any applicable local use tax impositions is the cumulative use tax rate for any given location. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all similarly situated persons, damages for the over collection of excess tax, and injunctive relief. He seeks damages and costs for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo Rev. Stat. Section 407.010 et seq., and damages for unjust enrichment, negligence, and money had and received. The Defendant removed the case from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on Sept. 17, 2021. It asserts original jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The CAFA authorizes removal if there is minimal diversity, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate, and the proposed class contains at least 100 members. The Defendant based the removal on the following: $723,680 in estimated actual damages, which it claims represents the amount of excess taxes it over-collected during the class period; a 33% attorney fee award of the estimated actual damages which would be $241,226.67; injunctive relief based on the taxes that Michaels would annually cease over-collecting, which equals a discounted $1,161,544.21 over the next 10 years and $1,857,003.63 over the next 20 years; and a "conservative estimation" of punitive damages at a ratio of 4:1 which would be $2,894,720.00 and a 27:1 ratio of $19,539,360. The Plaintiff disputes the basis for removal in part and adjusts as follows: $723,680 in estimated actual damages; a 33% attorney fee award of the estimated actual damages which would be $241,226.67; and, assuming arguendo, that the Defendant is permitted to include the most extreme calculation of prospective injunctive relief in taxes that it would cease to collect (i.e., $1,857,003.63) in its calculation of the amount in controversy, the maximum amount of controversy in this case is about $2,821,910.30 ($723,680 + $241,226.67 + the 20-year, 5% discounted value of $1,857,003.63). The Plaintiff maintains that this is substantially below the CAFA threshold. In its Memorandum in Opposition, the Defendant re-calculated the basis for removal and is as follows: $542,760 in estimated actual damages; a 33% attorney fee award of the estimated actual damages which would be $180,920; injunctive relief based on the taxes that Defendant would annually cease over-collecting, which equals a discounted $871,158.16 over the next 10 years and $1,392,752.72 over the next 20 years, and a "conservative estimation" of punitive damages at a ratio of 7:1 which would be $3,799,320 and a 27:1 ratio of $14,654,520, respectively. The amount in controversy would range from $5,394,158.16 to $16,770,952.70, all above the CAFA threshold. Discussion The parties disagree on two issues for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy: (1) whether punitive damages may be considered and (2) how injunctive relief should be measured. First, Judge Autrey opines that the Plaintiff did not seek or even mention punitive damages in his Petition. As a result, the Court will not include punitive damages in calculating the amount in controversy. Second, assuming without deciding that the cost of prospective relief is allowed to be calculated within the value of injunctive relief, it still does not reach the amount in controversy (i.e., $5 million threshold) required to establish jurisdiction under CAFA. The Defendant alleges that if the Plaintiff obtains permanent injunctive relief, it would result in the Defendant's ceasing to collect the annual, alleged over-charged taxes in perpetuity. This ultimately would amount to a discounted amount of $871,158.16 over the next 10 years and $1,392,752.72 over the next 20 years. Even if these values are included in the amount in controversy calculation, the $5 million threshold is not met given the omission of punitive damages, as discussed earlier. Lastly, because punitive damages cannot be considered, it is not possible that a fact finder might legally conclude that damages are greater than CAFA's threshold. Even considering the Defendant's estimated injunctive relief -- between $871,158.16 and $1,392,752.72 based on a 5% discounted value of the taxes that it would annually cease over-collecting over the next 10 to 20 years -- along with the compensatory damages ($540,760) and attorneys' fees (33% of the award or $180,920), the total amount in controversy does not even reach $2.5 million. Rather, using the higher 20-year value of injunctive relief proposed by the Defendant, the maximum total is calculated to $2,116,432.72, which is well below the $5 million threshold required to satisfy CAFA jurisdiction. Conclusion Based upon his foregoing analysis, Judge Autrey concludes that the Defendant has not met its burden of showing that federal CAFA jurisdiction exists; the Defendant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the action met the $5 million threshold required for such jurisdiction at the time of removal. The matter will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge Autrey granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The parties each bear their own costs incurred by reason of these removal and remand proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Opinion, Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88zcun from Leagle.com. MYOSTORM LLC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Paguada Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE PAGUADA, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MYOSTORM, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-01287-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join May 25, 2022 additional parties shall be filed no later: -- All fact discovery shall be August 23, 2022 completed no later than: -- All expert discovery, including August 23, 2022 reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production May 25, 2022 of documents shall be served by: -- The Plaintiff shall file shall Sept. 22, 2022 file a motion for class certification no later than: -- Any opposition shall be filed Oct. 21, 2022 by: -- Any reply shall be filed by: Nov. 21, 2022 MyoStorm is a pain relief and sports medicine company founded and located along the Wasatch Front in Provo, Utah. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MgS3Cv at no extra charge.[CC] NEW DAIRYDEL: Aguilar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Dairydel, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Patricio Martinez Aguilar, Manuel Jesus Arizaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Dairydel, Inc., Four Corners Foods Inc., Dklee Realty Corp. doing business as: Bagel Plus Deli; Myeong Gu Kim, Charles Lee, Seungki J. Lee also known as: Daniel Lee, also known as: Dadniel Lee, Kimberly Seung Hee Lee, as individuals; Case No. 7:22-cv-03700-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. New Dairydel Inc. doing business as Dairydel is a retail food store licensed by New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avraham Y. Scher, Esq. James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq. Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Ste. 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 Email: avi@helendalton.com jamespodonnell86@gmail.com avshalumovr@yahoo.com NORTH DAKOTA: Water Protectors Appeals Class Action Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Indybay reports that the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that TigerSwan's documents from Standing Rock are public records. Confirming the ruling of the district court, the high court's ruling means that The Intercept and other news media will be able to obtain the documents. The high court ruled that a state regulatory committee must comb through the 60,000 documents and remove those associated with trade secrets and litigation. The lawsuit is a victory for free press. Documents that have already been leaked reveal the names of many Water Protectors who were targeted by TigerSwan at Standing Rock. Those leaked documents also expose infiltrators in the camps who attempted to entrap Water Protectors and provoke crimes. Read the article at Censored News: https://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2022/04/north-dakota-supreme-court-says-tiger.html In a separate court action, Water Protectors who were injured by rubber bullets and other projectiles fired by law enforcement filed an appeal of a case that was thrown out by the courts. "Water Protectors filed an appeal in the Dundon v. Kirchmeier civil rights case. Dundon v. Kirchmeier is a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit in which six named plaintiffs are seeking redress on behalf of hundreds of #NoDAPL Water Protectors who were injured by law enforcement on the night of November 20, 2016," attorneys for Water Protectors said. "On December 29, 2021, the North Dakota District Court threw out the Water Protectors' lawsuit, finding that law enforcement was justified in unleashing a ten-hour-long barrage of impact munitions, chemical weapons, explosive grenades and freezing water on unarmed, nonviolent water protectors. The court decision was deeply flawed and let law enforcement off the hook relying heavily on the doctrine of qualified immunity." "Despite the disappointing loss, the Water Protector Legal Collective and Cooperating Attorneys on the legal team promised to keep fighting not just in this case, but generally, reaffirming the commitment to supporting the Earth and all those in the climate justice movement who work to defend and protect Her." "The appeal brief references over 1,700 pages of evidence refuting Morton County's claims that law enforcement was under attack and had to inflict mass violence to avoid being overrun," attorneys for Water Protectors said. [GN] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Renewed Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA C. DESELMS, et al., v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00243-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Nanay D. Freudenthal entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class: -- With the Court's revisions to Plaintiffs' theory of antitrust liability and to the definition of"Class Period," Plaintiffs' Motion is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 23(c)(4) with respect to the Federal and State liability issues (antitrust violation and antitrust impact) against Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Anadarko Land Corp., Anadarko Oil & Gas 5 LLC; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Anita C. Deselms, John C. Ekiund, Jr., Justin W. and Brandi J. Miller, Ron Rabou, and Russell I. Williams, Jr. as class representatives; 3. appointing Robert P. Schuster of Robert P. Schuster PC as lead class counsel; and 4. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class. By their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs bring an antitrust case which seeks to establish a class to compensate all similarly situated persons for injury caused by the Defendants' allegedly anticompetitive conduct. More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege Anadarko is the single largest non-governmental owner of minerals in Laramie County, Wyoming. As alleged, Anadarko devised an anticompetitive scheme to give itself maximum economic benefit in this area,to the disadvantage of neighboring mineral owners and competitors who, because of the scheme, could not lease their minerals. On January 29,2022, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. In relevant part, the Plaintiffs seek to establish a class of: "all persons having ownership of Class Minerals during the Class Period as those unleased minerals were set forth in a listing provided to theCourt." The Class Period is from November 1, 2017 through October 19, 2020. "Class Minerals" is defined (in relevant part) as: Oil and gas mineral interests in the relevant market or submarket in Laramie County, Wyoming, that were: (a) Not under an oil and gas lease to drill and operate wells during the Class Period; (b) Located in the Niobrara and/or Codell geologic formations east of the eastern boundary of Range 67W having oil and gas pools that could be reasonably produced as demonstrated by industry's filing of drilling spacing applications or applications fordrilling permits in at least 50% of the sections in the relevant township; and (c) Located either: a. Within one section of a section that had a 30% royalty Intracompany Lease covering at least 50% of the oil and gas minerals provided the lease or memorandum of the lease was filed in the Laramie County public records disclosing the royalty rate. Occidental Petroleum is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, and the Middle East as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United States, Canada, and Chile. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FKVj6S at no extra charge.[CC] OLIN CORPORATION: Miami Products Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class, and appointing class representatives and class counsel, along with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All persons and entities who purchased in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendants (or from any of the Defendants’ predecessors, subsidiaries, or affiliates) liquid forms of membrane or diaphragm grade Caustic Soda at any time between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 (the class)." Excluded from the class are Defendants, their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all government entities, agencies, and instrumentalities. For purposes of this exclusion, "predecessors" includes The Dow Chemical Company, whose chlor-alkali business was acquired by Olin effective October 5, 2015, and Axiall Corporation, which was acquired by Westlake effective August 31, 2016. Also excluded are purchases under: (i) long-term fixed-price contracts that predate October 1, 2015, (ii) cost-based contracts (such as cost-plus contracts) with no component of price based on a Caustic Soda index, and (iii) contracts that are priced on an ECU (electrochemical unit) basis with no component of price based on a Caustic Soda index. Miami Products & Chemical Co is a chemicals company. Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39g9Bjp at no extra charge.[CC] Interim Liaison Class Counsel, are: Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: cercone@ruppbaase.com Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com - and - C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. 800 Boylston St., 16th Floor Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (857) 453-6555 E-mail: cdirksen@cerallp.com Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com ON POINT: Michael Kapinos Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KAPINOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ON POINT ALL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00664-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of consisting of: "all persons who received two or more calls in a 12-month period to their NDNCR registered phone numbers more than thirty days after their numbers were registered with the NDNCR made by or on behalf On Point using the Call Tools dialer after On Point purchased their leads from Sun Operative;" 2. appointing him as class representative and Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. as class counsel; and 3. establishing a deadline for submitting a proposed notice plan. The Defendant On Point purchased tens of thousands of residential leads from a single source (Sun Operative) and had made calls made by a "telemarketer" to market On Point's solar contracting services to those numbersusing a single dialer (Call Tools). Included in the Sun Operative leads are the Plaintiff Kapinos's telephone number and thousands of other consumers' telephone numbers that had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time On Point purchased them and had them called. The Plaintiff's expert (Aaron Woolfson) has opined that there is a methodology for determining exactly which telephone numbers in the leads were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and compare those numbers against records of On Point's calls to determine which of them received two or more calls from or on behalf of On Point in a 12-month period more than 30 days after the numbers were National Do Not Call Registry registered. On Point All is a Green Energy/Home Improvement Company that was founded in 2016. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sydF5A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4 th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com OSCAR HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Carpenter v. Oscar Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03885, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Oscar investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/oscar-health-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses, under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes. On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that "[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year. Then, on November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7 million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year. During a conference call held the same day, Scott Blackley, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated: "We recognized approximately $20 million of risk adjustment expense this quarter related to our risk adjustment data validation audit or RADV results. The RADV exercise is atypical this year due to COVID. It spans two years, 2019 and 2020. The majority of the RADV headwinds relate to the 2019 audit results, which were recently completed." On this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or 24.5%, to close at 12.47 per share on November 11, 2021. By the commencement of this action, Oscar stock has traded as low as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per share IPO price. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] PEOPLECONNECT INC: Loses Bid to Arbitrate or Toss La Fronza Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANNA LA FRONZA and NATALIA KUPIEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and INTELIUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 21 C 03027 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, or in the alternative to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Introduction Anna La Fronza and Natalia Kupiec filed the putative class action against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants compiled and misappropriated their names and identities for commercial gain. The Defendants moved to compel arbitration, or in the alternative to dismiss the complaint. Background The Defendants operate a people-search website, USSearch.com, that sells access to proprietary reports about people using data compiled from third-party sources, such as public record repositories. These reports may contain information including a person's address, birth date, marriage records, and criminal history. The Plaintiffs allege that they have never been a customer of USSearch or any of the Defendants' other websites. Nonetheless, the First Amended Complaint contains screenshots from USSearch showing the search results for Kupiec's name. The Defendants posit that the Plaintiff's counsel accessed USSearch and obtained these screenshots through the site, which necessarily required acceptance of the TOS. Discussion Because the Defendants have asserted that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement, the Court must consider that issue before reaching any of the other substantive defenses raised in the Defendants' motion. The Plaintiffs argue that they personally are not bound by the arbitration clause. Both sides seem to agree that the Plaintiffs themselves are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, neither having personally used the USSearch website. While an arbitration agreement, like any contract, cannot be enforced against a party who has not agreed to it, "the obligation to arbitrate a dispute is not limited to those who have personally signed a written agreement." Of these exceptions, the Defendants have focused on agency. They contend that the Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration agreement because their attorneys consented to USSearch's TOS when they used the site to investigate their clients' claims. The Plaintiffs' counsel has not explicitly stipulated to this fact but responded to the motion as though it is true. Judge Durkin concludes that he is unable to determine whether the Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration agreement in the USSearch TOS on the facts before it. He has some tentative sense of what the Plaintiffs' counsel did in the leadup to the case and motion, but little insight into the words and actions of Pthe laintiffs themselves. It is this latter set of facts that matters most in evaluating the existence of an agency relationship. Accordingly, Judge Durkin will deny the motion without prejudice and permit the parties to engage in limited discovery as to the issue of arbitrability. Disposition For the reasons set forth, Judge Durkin denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, or in the alternative to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. He authorizes the parties to engage in fact discovery limited to the issue of arbitrability, including any related issues necessary to resolve the motion to compel arbitration. If the Defendants elect to depose either of the named Plaintiffs, that will not foreclose later depositions on the merits if necessary. All discovery on this issue will be completed by June 15, 2022. Once discovery is complete, the parties will file a joint status report by June 22, 2022 with a proposal for next steps. The Court presumes no evidentiary hearing will be necessary, but if any party believes otherwise, they may file an appropriate motion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pt5ytpk from Leagle.com. PHLAVZ BAR: Perry-Farr Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louisa Perry-Farr and Diamond Bell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. Phlavz Bar and Grill and Phillip Simpson, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02348 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, minimum wages, overtime wages, and earned wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiffs Perry-Farr and Bell were employed by the Defendants as servers at their Maxwell Street location from May 27, 2021 until November 29, 2021 and from March 25, 2021 until November 28, 2021, respectively. Phlavz Bar and Grill, LLC owns and operates Phlavz restaurants in and around Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@bswages.com POLARIS INC: Faces Consumer Suits in California Court ----------------------------------------------------- Polaris Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that as of March 31, 2022, the company is party to two putative class actions pending against the company alleging that it violated various California consumer protection laws related to rollover protection structure certification in California, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas. Polaris is into transportation equipment and is based in Medina MN. REMO INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remo, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Remo, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03763 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remo Inc. -- https://remo.com/ -- is an American musical instruments manufacturing company based in Valencia, California, and founded by Remo Belli in 1957.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Villanueva v. Select Employment Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order modifying the briefing schedule regarding motion for class certification as follows. -- Deadline to file the Motion for July 15, 2022 Class Certification is: -- Deadline to file the Opposition is: Sept. 1, 2022 -- Deadline to file the Reply is: Sept. 22, 2022 -- Hearing will be held on the Motion Oct. 21, 2022 for Class Certification on: Select Employment is a locally-owned staffing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LX3ejs at no extra charge.[CC] SIERRA TUCSON: Knight Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- John Knight, Lorena Knight and Tiffany Campbell, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sierra Tucson, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00737-CDB (D. Ariz., May 2, 2022) is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. John Knight is employed by the Defendant as a patient safety technician from September of 2021 to the present; Lorena Knight as a nurse assistant from November of 2021 to the present; and Campbell as a residential safety crew member from December of 2021 until February of 2022. Sierra Tucson, LLC is an addiction treatment center based in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com SINERGIA INC: Fails to Provider Proper Wages, Sarr Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM SARR, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SINERGIA, INC., and DONALD LASH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03610 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants unpaid travel time; unpaid wages, including overtime due to time shaving; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a direct support professional in September 2020 until she was terminated on November 23, 2021. Sinergia, Inc. is a New York-based not-for-profit company which provide services and resources for people with disabilities, and underserved people with various limitations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 SNAP INC: Violates Consumers' Biometric Privacy, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher at topclassactions.com reports that Snap Inc. violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by capturing users' biometric information without their informed written consent, according to a data privacy class action lawsuit filed May 11 in Illinois federal court. Snap is the owner and operator of the Snapchat app, which is a camera application that allows users to communicate through short videos and images. The Snap class action lawsuit notes that Snapchat uses technology that is subject to BIPA. Each violation of BIPA may result in liquidated damages of up to $5,000, according to the lawsuit. Snap Class Action Says Biometric Data Collected Without Users' Consent Plaintiffs Adrian Coss and Maribel Ocampo, both residents of Illinois, say they have used the Snapchat app to create and post Snaps that include their unique facial features and unique voices. Under BIPA, a company cannot collect, capture or obtain customers' biometric information without first informing them in writing that their biometric information is being collected or stored, the purpose of the biometric data collection and the length of time the data will be stored. BIPA also requires companies to obtain written consent from customers authorizing the use of their biometric data, the data privacy class action lawsuit explains. Coss and Ocampo allege that Snap collected their biometric information without first obtaining their informed written consent in violation of BIPA. The plaintiffs specifically point to the use of the Lenses and Filter feature in the Snapchat app, which allegedly scanned their faces to create a detailed map of their facial features without their informed written consent. The Snap class action lawsuit alleges the company failed to disclose to Snapchat users that it would collect and capture their unique biometric information and how it uses the biometric data it collects. Coss and Ocampo filed the Snap class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of Illinois citizens who used the Snapchat app and whose biometric information was collected without their informed written consent. Snap is also facing a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to inform investors that Apple's new privacy features would decrease its advertising revenue. What do you think about the Snap class action lawsuit? Join the discussion in the comments below! [GN] SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Faces Perez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Savannah Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC, and Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits of Texas, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00419 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Perez was employed by the Defendants to work as a "Sales Consultant - Transatlantic On Premise" in Texas from June of 2021 until November of 2021. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC operates a wine and spirits distribution business and maintains offices located across the United States and in Canada, including Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. Allison H. Luttrell, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com allison@herrmannlaw.com SUPER73 INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super73, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Super73, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02676 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SUPER73 -- https://super73.com/ -- is an American lifestyle adventure brand and manufacturer of electric bicycles based in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wins Judgment in Burnell and Rudsell Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a Judgment in favor of the Defendants in the lawsuits captioned JOHN BURNELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al., Defendants, and JAMES R. RUDSELL, Plaintiff v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP, 5:12-cv-00692 VAP OP (C.D. Cal.). In accordance with the Court's April 28, 2022 order granting final approval of the Parties' class action settlement, the Court ruled that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, and Swift Transportation Company. The Plaintiffs and the certified class, except those members who timely and validly requested exclusion, will take nothing from the Defendants except in accordance with the approved settlement and the Court's April 28, 2022 order. Members of the certified settlement class, who timely and validly requested exclusion, are set forth on Exhibit A -- Bruce Gordon, Grant Fritsch, Edward Bouissey, Raad Othman, Scott Sommers, William Bouton, William Yingling, Tab Bachman, Rickey Hodge, Shirley Benoy, Tamra Horton and Richard Hodges. The Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the settlement and order approving the settlement. The Judgment is a separate document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated April 28, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mv536ds5 from Leagle.com. T&G SPORTS: Faces Abreu Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIGI ABREU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T&G SPORTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03612 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, http://www.skate.com/,to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. T&G Sports LLC is an online retail company that owns and operates the website offering products that Defendant delivers to New York and across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com TOEZPECUNIA INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAVEN GARCIA, KIMBERLY AGUIRRE MERAZ, HEYLI WOODRUFF, and KAYLEIGH, BENZIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOEZPECUNIA, INC. dba SWEET ILLUSIONS, an Oregon Corporation; WAYNE M. VAJGERT, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00639-MK (D. Or., May 2, 2022) is a class action for damages due to Defendants' evasion from the mandatory minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees." These causes of action arise from Defendants' alleged willful actions while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as dancers at various points from at least 2017 to March 2022. During their time being employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees further violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, says the suit. Toezpecunia, Inc. dba Sweet Illusions, an Oregon Corporation, operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility in Springfield, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Amanda Marshall, Esq. S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC 1318 NW Northrup Street Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: (503) 472-7190 E-mail: amanda@maclaw.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com TUG HILL: Rogers Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lastephen Rogers filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LASTEPHEN ROGERS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-199, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Wheeling. Plaintiff Rogers filed his complaint on Dec. 3, 2021, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendant Tug Hill. The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated workers paid by Defendant Tug Hill's day-rate system. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant Tug Hill operates an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating in West Virginia and Texas. He contends that while working for Defendant Tug Hill as a drilling and completions consultant, he, along with similarly situated workers, was paid a flat amount for each day worked with no overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 26, 2022, Judge John Preston Bailey of the Northern District of West Virginia, Wheeling, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting: a. RUSCO Operating, LLC's Motion to Intervene filed on Jan. 27, 2022; and b. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (6), and (7) filed on Feb. 24, 2022. The Plaintiff seeks a review of Judge Bailey's Memorandum Opinion. The appellate case is captioned as Lastephen Rogers v. Tug Hill Operating, LLC, Case No. 22-1480, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LASTEPHEN ROGERS, individually and for others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Jennings Burch, Esq. RICHARD BURCH 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street P. O. Box 3081 Charleston, WV 25331-0000 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com Defendants-Appellees TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC and RUSCO OPERATING, LLC are represented by: Erin J. McLaughlin, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Union Trust Building 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-4413 Telephone: (412) 392-2090 - and - Ashley Clarke Odell, Esq. BOWLES RICE, LLP 125 Granville Square Morgantown, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 285-2522 U.S. POSTAL: Shrestha Sues Over Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- MANJU SHRESTHA, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02268-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., April 29, 2022) is a class action seeking to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other damages owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for breach of contract under Tennessee law arising from unpaid contractual wages. Plaintiff Shrestha was employed by Defendant in Tennessee from approximately December 2021 to January 2022. She performed work duties for Defendant in two Memphis facilities. The USPS is an independent entity of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States, among other services.[BN] 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) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com UMG RECORDINGS: Marks Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Marks filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID MARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-MCS-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2021, the class action is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract, fraud, accounting, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the California's Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of underreporting international streaming revenues to the Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant is contractually required to pay artists a portion of the international revenue it receives from the exploitation of the Plaintiff and Class Members' artistic works from digital streaming. However, the Defendant has not been paying the Plaintiff and Class Members royalties based on all of the revenues received by the Defendant's foreign affiliates. Rather, the Defendant has been paying them based on a reduced amount of the international royalties received by its foreign affiliates, the suit alleges. On January 6, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. On April 6, 2022, Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted the motion and dismissed the case. The Plaintiff is now challenging the case dismissal ruling. The appellate case is captioned as David Marks v. UMG Recordings, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55453, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant David Marks Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 11, 2022; -- Appellant David Marks opening brief is due on July 5, 2022; -- Appellees Capitol Records, LLC and UMG Recordings, Inc. answering brief is due on August 4, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID MARKS, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Neville Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 N. Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com njohnson@jjllplaw.com - and - Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: mapearson@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com Defendants-Appellees UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC are represented by: Sean Ashley Commons, Esq. Lauren M. DeLilly, Esq. Rollin Ransom, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 555 W 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6010 E-mail: scommons@sidley.com ldelilly@sidley.com rransom@sidley.com UNITED STATES: Massaquoi Appeals Dismissal of Property Damage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Siaka Massaquoi filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Siaka Massaquoi, as a natural person in North Hollywood, California, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Christopher A. Wray, Chad Warren, Federal Bureau of, United States of America, Unidentified FBI Agents, 1 through 20, Case No. 2:21-cv-08569-SVW-PD, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The complaint is brought over alleged personal property damage. The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles on October 29, 2021. On February 15, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted on March 15, 2022, through an order entered by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. The Plaintiff is taking an appeal from this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Siaka Massaquoi v. FBI, et al., Case No. 22-55448, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Siaka Massaquoi opening brief is due on July 7, 2022; -- Appellees Federal Bureau of Investigation, Unidentified FBI Agents, Chad Warren and Christopher A. Wray answering brief is due on August 8, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SIAKA MASSAQUOI, as a natural person, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CHAD WARREN, CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, and UNIDENTIFIED FBI AGENTS, 1 through 20, are represented by: Talya Seidman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 300 N Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-7137 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit for Misleading 2019 Prospectus ----------------------------------------------------------------- Miklos Bolza at newcastleherald.com.au reports that Virgin Australia has downplayed the financial effects of a class action filed by investors claiming they were misled about the airline's 2019 prospectus. A spokesperson said the airline had not seen court documents relating to the class action and could not comment on the allegations brought against it. "Regardless, Virgin Australia does not expect any financial consequence to the company from these proceedings," the spokesperson said. The class action was filed by irate investors who claim they sank money into the airline and suffered loss when it entered administration due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In the lawsuit, investors accuse Virgin of hyping up its finances when promoting its November 2019 prospectus to buy out a minority shareholder of its Velocity frequent flyer loyalty program. The acquisition was estimated to cost $700 million, with Virgin offering around $325 million in unsecured notes to Australian investors and a further $US425 million in unsecured notes to investors in the United States. These notes were said to provide buyers with an eight per cent yearly interest rate. The class action accuses Virgin of lying about the cash it would have after the acquisition, the debt it had available for the transaction and its ability to meet its loan obligations. Following the completion of the acquisition in December 2019, Virgin experienced financial difficulties in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meetings were held throughout the health crisis where the firm is alleged to have assured investors about its future. [GN] VOLT MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Suit Submitted to Binding Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BEATRIZ RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00132-DAD-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California submitted the action to final and binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the parties' Arbitration Agreement. On April 25, 2022, the parties to the wage-and-hour putative class action filed a stipulation notifying the Court that they have agreed to dismiss the Plaintiff's class claims, without prejudice, and to submit the matter to binding arbitration to resolve the Plaintiff's individual claims, consistent with the Arbitration Agreement that the Plaintiff executed during the course of her employment with Defendant Volt. A copy of that Arbitration Agreement was attached to the parties' stipulation. The parties further stipulate that the matter should be stayed in its entirety pending the completion of binding individual arbitration. Pursuant to that stipulation, and good cause appearing, Judge Drozd dismissed the Plaintiff's class claims without prejudice. He submitted the action to final and binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the parties' Arbitration Agreement. The action will be stayed pending arbitration, and all dates currently on calendar are vacated. The parties are required to notify the Court that arbitration proceedings have concluded within 14 days of the issuance of the arbitrator's decision. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckf7667 from Leagle.com. WALGREEN PHARMACY: Lemons Appeals Claim Dismissal Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Taylor Lemons filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES EASTERN, LLC, and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES WESTERN, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00511-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover penalty wages for all current and former employees of Walgreen Pharmacy Service Midwest, LLC, Walgreen Pharmacy Services Eastern under the Oregon wage and hour laws. According to the complaint, around January 1, 2008, WPSW or WPSE began operating Walgreens pharmacies in Oregon and became the employer of most or all of Walgreen Co.'s employees in Oregon. Employees were not told that their employment with Walgreen Co. was terminated and that their new employer was WPSW or WPSE. Pursuant to ORS 652.140, WPSW or WPSE was required to pay all wages owed to all employees whose employment was terminated on December 31, 2015 by the end of the next business day, the suit adds. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and class members were not paid all wages owed until January 14, 2016. On January 26, 2016, WPSW and WPSE merged with WPSM. Additionally, WPSW and WPSE no longer exist, and are unable provide adequate relief directly to the Plaintiff and the class. On April 18, 2022, the Court ordered and adjudged that Claim Two -- which states that Walgreens failed to pay its employees timely wages following the merger between Walgreen Eastern, Walgreen Western, and Walgreen Midwest -- from Lemons' Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Taylor Lemons v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-35354, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Taylor Lemons Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 11, 2022; -- Appellant Taylor Lemons opening brief is due on July 5, 2022; -- Appellees Walgreen Pharmacy Services Eastern, LLC, Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC and Walgreen Pharmacy Services Western, LLC answering brief is due on August 4, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, is represented by: John David Burgess, Esq. Carl L. Post, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. SNYDER 1000 S.W. Broadway Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 241-3617 Defendants-Appellees WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES EASTERN, LLC, and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES WESTERN, LLC are represented by: Ryan Kunkel, Esq. Karen L. O'Connor, Esq. Timothy W. Snider, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 WALMART INC: Moorhead Sues for Retaliation, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA MOORHEAD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10916-SDD-JJCG (E.D. Mich., April 29, 2022) is an employee rights lawsuit precipitated by Defendant's discriminatory animus against Plaintiff and other employees with disabilities in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Moorhead was an exemplary employee of six years with no marks on her record. She has long suffered from physical disability and had reasonable accommodations granted by Defendant for six years. According to the complaint, after a change in management, Defendant began publicly humiliating Plaintiff in front of customers for having a disability. The Defendant then rescinded Plaintiff's existing reasonable accommodations and placed her on a 90-day unpaid leave, calling it a "reassignment period." The Defendant then forced Plaintiff to take leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act and retaliated against her by, inter alia, terminating Plaintiff's employment before she returned to work in contravention of the FMLA. While Plaintiff was on protected leave, she fortuitously checked the WalmartOne employee scheduling system and was surprised to learn she was scheduled to return to work without any prior notice. The Plaintiff called her manager, who said it was a mistake. However, Plaintiff came to learn that Defendant has a pattern and practice of retaliating against employees who are on a protected medical leave by placing them on the work schedule without notice so that they can manufacturer terminations for "no call no show" when the employee misses work. The Defendant's practice violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the FMLA, alleges the suit. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq. Kara F. Krause, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 617 Detroit St., Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Retro Game Market Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- videogameschronicle.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been brought against game grading firm Wata, which plaintiffs accuse of unfair business practices and "manipulating the retro video game market". The class action centres around claims made in a pair of reports last year, which alleged that Wata colluded with an auction house to artificially inflate the value of the retro video game market for their own gain, allegations both companies denied to VGC at the time. It was also alleged last summer that Wata's own employees had been actively selling their own graded games for high prices, in breach of its own policies regarding fraud and conflict of interest. The lawsuit was filed on May 10 in the Central District of California by plaintiffs and class members from across the US who paid for video game "encapsulation" and grading services from Wata. The exact number of class members is unknown, but it's estimated they could exceed 10,000 individuals, based on Wata's average submission figures. The plaintiffs accuse Wata of "engaging in affirmative acts to manipulate the retro video game market, engaging in unfair business practices, engaging in false advertising, making false statements about the turnaround times for grading services and failing to disclose material delays to customers." VGC has requested comment from both Wata and Heritage Auctions. Boxed retro games experienced a surge in sale prices during the pandemic, with several notable video game auctions raising record sums in the millions. Last summer, a pristine condition copy of Super Mario 64 sold for $1.56 million, and weeks later, a copy of Super Mario Bros. sold for $2 million. Just a year earlier, the record price for a video game was 10 times less: $156,000 for a sealed copy of Super Mario Bros. 3. Every game mentioned above was graded by Wata, a company that gives games a numerical grade depending on their quality. Although game grading companies already existed before Wata, following its inception in 2018 Wata quickly became considered the authority. The lawsuit filed focuses on whether Wata and its parent company Collectors Universe attempted to inflate the retro game market to enhance their profits, and if they falsely advertised unrealistic turnaround times to the public in relation to receiving their games back after grading. It's alleged that Wata president and CEO Deniz Kahn had been working with Heritage Auctions co-founder Jim Halperin to manipulate the market through press releases and interviews claiming the value of retro games would continue to rise. Crucially, Heritage Auctions' Halperin was also listed as an advisor on the Wata site, but this conflict of interest was never disclosed. In a statement issued to VGC last summer, the company said it "strongly refutes any allegation that it or its officers are involved in shill bidding, 'market manipulation' or any similarly illegal or unethical practices." Court documents claim that before Wata's inception, the highest price ever paid for a video game was a copy of Super Mario Bros, which sold on eBay for a little over $30,000 in July 2017. However, this record was demolished in February 2019 when another copy of Super Mario Bros - graded by Wata - sold for more than triple that price at $100,150. Crucially, it's alleged that the game was sold to three men, including Halperin. This was followed by a Heritage Auctions press release celebrating the 'world record', in which Halperin promoted Heritage's upcoming first Wata-certified video game auction. The press release also included quotes from Wata CEO Kahn, stating that the hobby's upward trajectory "showed no signs of slowing down". The Wata boss also said he would have "loved nothing more than to be a part-owner [of this game]" but "I didn't want the remote perception of any conflict of interest due to my position at Wata". However, he did not mention that one of the buyers (Halperin) was on Wata's Advisory Board. Wata's business model sees it charge a percentage of a game's market value when grading it, so if a game's market value is $10,000 Wata charges up to $400 to grade it, but if a game is valued at $1 million it would cost over $20,000 to grade it. Meanwhile, Heritage Auctions stands to make even more money by charging a 20% buyer's premium, so if a game sells for $1 million Heritage gets $200,000. It also takes 5% from the seller, a further $50,000. So by allegedly working together, Heritage and Wata stood to make a lot of money by valuing retro games at extortionate prices and selling them at auction, it's claimed. The class-action notes that in the months that followed, Halperin and Khan continued to discuss the Super Mario Bros. game in the media, notably an Ars Technica interview in which the latter said he believed there would soon be "a million-dollar video game sale". The class-action documents single out an appearance by Khan on an episode of History Channel's 'Pawn Stars' show, which aired in November 2019 but was likely filmed six months earlier. Richard Lecce, who bought the $100,000 Super Mario Bros. game in partnership with Heritage Auctions' Halperin and another man, appeared on the show claiming to want to sell it to the pawn shop for $1 million dollars. The pawn shop proprietor indicated he wanted to consult with an expert to value the game. The expert brought on the show was Deniz Khan, the CEO of Wata. "During the episode, Lecce and Khan failed to identify any kind of relationship to one another," the class action documents claim. "Rather, they appeared to pretend they did not know each other. "Khan then stated that he remembered the game coming through Wata and described it as the 'most significant piece of video game history' that has ever passed through the grading company." During the show, Khan is said to have valued the game at more than $300,000 - a tripling in value since it was last sold nine months earlier. "Tellingly, no deal to purchase the game was made by the pawn shop," the lawsuit docs read. "However, the visibility and alleged value of the game had been successfully inflated to the public." The episode has since been removed from History Channel's website "without explanation," it's claimed. In the months following Khan's and Halperin's media appearances, it's noted that the sale price of Super Mario Bros. games increased. In April 2020, another copy of Super Mario Bros. was purchased by investment company Rally for $140,000. The same game was later sold in August of 2021 for $2 million dollars to an unnamed buyer. In July of 2020, Heritage Auctions hosted an auction of "an arguably less valuable variant" of the Super Mario Bros. game graded by Wata for $114,000," according to the class-action docs. In April 2021, another copy of the same game was sold through Heritage Auctions for $660,000. In the case of all copies sold via Heritage Auctions, the company would have received a 20% buyer premium, which equates to about $154,800 for the copy sold at $660,000. However, the class-action alleges that after the publication of 'exposes' by journalists last summer laying out some of the allegations on this page, retro game prices began falling. For example, in July 2021, which was before the press reports were published, a copy of Super Mario 64 graded by Wata as "9.8 A++" sold for $1.56 million through Heritage Auctions, it's claimed. In October of the same year, after the press reports, a copy of the same game graded by Wata at "9.6 A++" sold for $102,000 through Heritage Auctions, the lawsuit states. In April 2022, Heritage Auctions sold a Super Mario 64 game graded by Wata at "9.6 A++" for $57,600. Finally, the class-action alleges that some customers had to wait months for their games to be returned despite Wata stating turnaround times of as little as 15 business days. It's also alleged that Wata moved its headquarters from Colorado to California in September 2021, without gaining permission from collectors to move their games. The class action states: "Heritage Auctions benefitted by earning more commissions from sellers and buyers. Halperin benefitted from the value of his game increasing. Wata benefitted by the increased notoriety and increased demand for grading services. "Also, the increased value of the games allowed Wata to charge even more for its grading services since prices were tied to values. Yet, the relationship between Wata and Heritage Auctions was still unknown to collectors. "Meanwhile, video game collectors rushed to send in their own sealed games into Wata for grading, believing they could sell the games for profits as the market soared. "Unbeknownst to collectors, Wata was massively bogged down by the rush. Still the company advertised false and overly optimistic turnaround times on its website. Customers were not notified of the delays in advance of their purchases. Wata continued accepting orders and payments from customers." Last summer, a Wata spokesperson told VGC of the allegations: "Wata Games is the trusted leader in collectible video game grading and we're honored to play a key role in this booming industry that we are incredibly passionate about. We're humbled by the support of our thousands of customers who trust us to provide accurate and transparent grading. "The claims in this video are completely baseless and defamatory and it is unfortunate that Mr. Jobst did not contact us to give us the opportunity to correct him." [GN] WELLS FARGO: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Hobbs Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA HOBBS, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03635 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.wellsfargo.com/, to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Wells Fargo & Company 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.[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 WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Suit Moved to California Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California remanded the case, ERIC SHADINGER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00944-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. Judge Mueller has considered the parties' stipulation. Each party will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the removal of the action and other proceedings in the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33z7dkmc from Leagle.com. WOODSTREAM CORP: Painter Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nancy Painter filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Nancy Painter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Woodstream Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02872, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. The lawsuit was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, Ohio to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on December 13, 2018. This putative class action was filed on October 17, 2018. Plaintiff, Nancy Painter, alleges that she purchased a Victor PestChaser(R) trademarked ultrasonic pest control device, advertised by the Defendant as a "Rodent Repeller" that "emits ultrasound at varying volumes and varying frequencies which 'prevents rodent from being accustomed to the ultrasound'". However, Plaintiff says these statements were false and that they form the basis for her common law claims of Fraud and Breach of Express Warranty. On March 31, 2022, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Exclude and Motion for Summary Judgment. In light of the court's ruling dismissing Painter's remaining claim, the court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A judgment was also entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Nancy Painter. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of Judge Oliver's order. The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Painter v. Woodstream Corporation, Case No. 22-3405, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NANCY PAINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Nicole Therese Fiorelli, Esq. Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 S. Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Defendant-Appellee WOODSTREAM CORPORATION is represented by: Robyn E. Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 555 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 - and - Leonora Cohen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 680-8157 - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 - and - Sommer Lynn Sheely, Esq. BRICKER & ECKLER 100 S. Third Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-2300 ********* 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 ***