/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220603.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 105
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Keller Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
ALLSTATE FIRE: Keisters Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
AVANTUS LLC: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Faces LGBTQ Fertility Coverage Discrimination Suit
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settlement in Ide Suit Gets Initial Nod
CAREDX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 22 Deadline
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Hale Seeks Extension of All Deadlines by 60 Days
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Suit Alleges Jewish Passengers' Discrimination
DOCTOR'S BEST: Sharae Casey Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
ENSERVCO CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 19 Deadline
ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Discloses Class Action
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Fodera Wage Suit
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Entry of Summary Judgment in SXSW Suit Endorsed
FIFTH THIRD: Court Dismisses Heavy & General Suit With Prejudice
FLACK GLOBAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to July 5
FRESH HARVEST: Extension of Time for Filing Class Cert Sought
GARDEN OF LIFE: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider CLP Suit Dismissal
GEICO CASUALTY: Day Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Ewing Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Extension of Time for Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Underpays Servers, Morales et al. Claim
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Entered in Jackson Class Suit
HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Labour-Inducing Drug Oxytocin
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Case Management Order Entered in Zakikhani Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Due July 25
IBERDROLA SA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Levesque Suit
IDAHO: Court Grants Joint Bid to Adjust Scheduling Order
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Melzer Suit Over Alleged BIPA Violations
KANGMEI PHARMA: Investors Collect $364M in Fraud Suit Judgment
KESSENICH'S LTD: Filing of Conditional Status Bid Due August 17
LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Response Due June 8
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Settles Suit Over Pension Fund for $1.5 Million
LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey, et al., Seek to Certify Class
LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LV TAPAS: Faces Escobar Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MAZDA MOTOR: Stem Seal Defect Linked to Oil Consumption, Suit Says
NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Allowed Leave to File Reply
NUTRIBULLET LLC: Class Settlement Claim Form Deadline Set June 13
OKTA INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 19 Deadline
OLD SOUL'S: Lewis et al. Sue Over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Response to Fifth Interrogatories Stayed
PRO MUSIC: Cordero Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
RISE SERVICES: Seeks 30-Day Extension to Respond to Class Cert
SDII GLOBAL: Air Quality Sues Over Improper Business Practices
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Opris Suit Granted in Part
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: Settlement Deal Reached in Class Suit
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: To Settle Labor Suit in California Court
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Germond Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Feb. 17, 2023
THINX INC: Underwear Contains Harmful Chemicals, Class Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Extends Scheduling Order Deadlines
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Feng Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Tordjman Class Suit
UHL VENTURES: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians' OT, Bonura Claims
VISA INC: B&R Seeks Distribution of Certified Class Notice
WALMART INC: Lebby Seeks Sept. 16 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has Liabilities from Issued Policies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 158 Individual PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Several Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $495MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $135.8MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Defends Numerous PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $135.1MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Subsidiary Receives 721 New Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Reports 500 Cases in the U.S.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Has $75.5MM Liabilities at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Defends 1,850 Personal Injury Lawsuits
*********
3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CHOAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v.3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DENEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; MEDICAL MONITORING TRUST TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to
100, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01667-RMG (S.C. Cir., May 26,
2022) is an action involving highly toxic chemicals which have
earned the designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not
breakdown and their insidious nature allows them to travel through
soil and into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants, were
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firefighting foams
("AFFF") which contained chemicals known as PFC's, per fluorinated
compounds, including PFOS and PFOA from the 1960's forward. The
toxicity of the chemicals were extreme/ultra-hazardous even when
used for their intended purposes, including fire-fighting, and that
the chemicals were found to be accumulating in the bloodstream,
liver and kidneys of humans and animals in the human food chain.
The chemicals were being associated with numerous diseases such as
cancer, testicular, pancreatic and liver, high cholesterol levels,
thyroid changes, autoimmune issues, and pre-eclampsia. The
Defendants not only concealed the true ultra-hazardous nature of
the chemicals and the severe adverse health consequences from
exposure; The Defendants fraudulently maintained that there were no
hazards with products, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate cause of exposure to the Defendants'
toxic chemicals, the Plaintiff sustained injuries, the suit added.
3M COMPANY conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Road
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Keller Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM WEST dba ADVENTIST
HEALTH; ADVENTIST HEALTH EMPLOYEE MEDICAL PLAN– ENGAGED!;
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; BLUE ZONES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00907-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., May 26, 2022)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
("COBRA").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had one year to secure
insurance coverage under her employer sponsored plan, but she did
not know that. She did not elect continued coverage, neither did
her family. Consequently, the Plaintiff was uncovered and had no
insurance during a global pandemic when Covid vaccines were not yet
available. The Plaintiff suffered anxiety and fear, due to her lack
of health insurance and the Defendants' failures to comply with
COBRA, says the suit.
The Defendants did not give the Plaintiff or any former employees
and their families notices of their rights under the American
Rescue Plan. They did not give the Plaintiff or any former
participants notice of their rights under Cal-COBRA, which adopted
the American Rescue Plan. The Defendants have claimed that the Plan
is exempt from ERISA and COBRA, because it is a church plan. The
Defendants, however, also ignored Cal-COBRA, which does not exempt
church plans, the suit added.
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM WEST dba ADVENTIST HEALTH provides health
care services. The Company offers cancer, urgent, home, primary,
pediatrics, emergency, rehabilitation, and virtual care services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sang J. Park, Esq.
Sook Won, Esq.
PARK APC
5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (310) 627-2964
Facsimile: (310) 362-8279
Email: sang@park-lawyers.com
sook@park-lawyers.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Keisters Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHONG KEISTER and RUSSELL
KEISTER, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00953-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Allstate operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x6j1YB
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Horn, Esq.
Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
Taylor P. Foye, Esq.
HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
2600 Grand, Ste. 1100
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 421-0700
Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
E-mail: jkronawitter@hab-law.com
tfoye@hab-law.com
- and -
Brian Timothy Meyers, Esq.
Abigail Han, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS
1044 Main Street, Ste. 400
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 842-0006
Facsimile: (816) 842-6623
E-mail: btmeyers@btm-law.com
ahan@btm-law.com
AVANTUS LLC: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVEL MARTINEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AVANTUS, LLC and
XACTUS, LLC, successor in interest to certain assets of AVANTUS,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01772-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action.
Avantus LLC a consumer reporting agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MX8LqJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Sarah Poriss, Esq.
777 Farmington Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06119
Telephone: (860) 233-0336
Facsimile: (866) 424-4880
E-mail: sarahporiss@prodigy.net
BLUE CROSS: Faces LGBTQ Fertility Coverage Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Emerson at beckerspayer.com reports that a proposed class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois unlawfully
denied full coverage for fertility treatments to LBGTQ members.
The complaint filed May 19 alleges the plaintiff, her partner and
other LGBTQ members are being forced by BCBSIL to pay out of pocket
for one year of medically based and supervised methods of
conception before the payer will provide coverage for fertility
treatments because they cannot conceive through intercourse.
According to the court documents, BCBS provides members with
immediate coverage and no out-of-pocket costs if they have not
conceived after unprotected sexual intercourse for 12 months.
Because the plaintiff has had to pay $19,000 for a successful
pregnancy, the lawsuit describes the payer's policy as "an illegal
tax on LGBTQ individuals that denies the equal rights of LGBTQ
individuals to have children."
The complaint also alleges that the policy is discriminatory based
on sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity and violates
LGBTQ members' rights under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
The case argues that LGBTQ members can only meet BCBS' definition
of "infertility" if they pay for 12 months of procedures such as
intrauterine insemination or other "medically based and supervised
methods of conception."
Under Illinois law, an insurance policy "may [not] impose any
exclusions, limitations, or other restrictions on coverage of any
fertility services based on a covered individual's participation in
fertility services provided by or to a third party," and it cannot
impose any other limitations on coverage for the diagnosis of
infertility, treatment for infertility and standard fertility
preservation services.
The case looks to represent all individuals covered under a BCBSIL
policy and who have been or will be denied coverage for fertility
treatments because they cannot meet the payer's prerequisite of a
diagnosis or treatment of "infertility" based upon the inability to
conceive after 12 months of unprotected sexual intercourse.[GN]
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settlement in Ide Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN IDE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BRITISH
AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Case No. 1:20-cv-03542-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the class action Settlement;
2. preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class;
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Ide, Steele-Clarke, and
Dominique as the Class Representatives;
4. appointing Shanon J. Carson and John G. Albanese of Berger
Montague PC and Adam Polk, Scott Grzenczyk, and Tom Watts
of Girard Sharp LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement
Class;
5. approving the proposed notice plan and issuance of notice
to Settlement Class Members;
6. setting forth procedures for opting out of or objecting to
the Settlement; and
7. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing to consider final
approval of the Settlement.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gsz8Cy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
CAREDX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CDNA) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased CareDx
stock between February 24, 2021 through May 5, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that CareDx misled investors and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Defendants had engaged in a variety of improper
and illegal schemes to inflate revenue and demand for testing
services; (2) these practices subjected the Company to an
undisclosed risk of regulatory scrutiny; and (3) these practices
artificially inflated the revenue reported from CareDx's testing
services throughout the Class Period.
On October 28, 2021, CareDx disclosed that it was subject of at
least three government investigations (by the U.S. Department of
Justice, the Securities Exchange Commission, and a state regulatory
agency), concerning the Company's business practices related to its
kidney testing and phlebotomy services, as well as its accounting
and public reporting practices. On this news, the price of CareDx
shares dropped $19.34, or 27.5%, from a closing price of $70.34 per
share on October 28, 2021, to close at $51.00 per share on October
29, 2021, on extremely heavy trading volume.
On April 15, 2022, CareDx's former Head of Community Nephrology,
Dr. Michael Olymbios, sued the Company, alleging, among other
things, that the Company had "engaged in various forms of clinical
and marketing schemes in an effort to justify [CareDx product]
AlloSure's use, even when that use lacked clinical support and fell
outside of the conditional approval extended to it [by Medicare]."
On this news, the price of CareDx stock fell $2.86, or 8.1 %, from
a closing price of $35.41 on the previous trading day, April 14,
2022, to close at $32.55 per share on the next trading day of April
18, 2022.
On May 5, 2022, CareDx announced that the Company's testing service
revenue fell significantly short of analysts' expectations, and
that average sales price had declined by approximately 4.9%
compared with the final quarter of 2021. On this news, the price of
CareDx stock dropped $5.88, or 18.6%, from a closing price of
$31.66 per share on May 5, 2022, to close at $25.87 per share on
May 6, 2022.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CareDx
should contact the Firm prior to the July 22, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY WOLFE, SANDY
WIZZARD, KIMBERLY NAPIER, and PRISCILLA WILLIAMS, v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Case No.
3:20-cv-00242-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr. entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows:
-- Discovery Completion: February 1, 2023
-- Expert Reports: Nov. 23, 2022 (plaintiff)
Dec. 21, 2022 (defendant)
-- Mediation: TBD
-- Class Certification/ Feb. 15, 2023
Decertification Motions:
-- Dispositive Motions: April 12, 2023
-- Oral Argument on MSJs: On or before May 24, 2023
-- Jury Trial: July 3, 2023
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, operates as a hospital.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gsd8Ib at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Hale Seeks Extension of All Deadlines by 60 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE HALE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, L.P., Case No. 4:21-cv-00877-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
all existing deadlines by 60 days.
On March 4, 2022, the Court entered its Preliminary Scheduling
Order for this class-action matter. The March 4, 2022 Preliminary
Scheduling Order provided, a deadline to complete class discovery
of June 10, 2022 and a deadline to file for class certification of
June 17, 2022.
On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiff issued his first set of discovery
to Credit Management focused on class-related issues such as the
number of persons who received letters similar to the letter sent
to Mr. Hale underlying this litigation.
Credit Management is operating as a debt collection company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a1XNBR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C
30 East Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 540-8888
Facsimile: (215) 540-8817
E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
- and -
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLP
231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
E-mail: dbutsch@butschroberts.com
croberts@butschroberts.com
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Suit Alleges Jewish Passengers' Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Klint at liveandletsfly.com reports that Lufthansa CEO Jens
Ritter has offered a note of apology and compensation to Jewish
passengers who were denied boarding on a flight to Budapest on the
basis of their appearance. But a class action lawsuit against the
German carrier is heating up.
Lufthansa CEO Offers Personalized Apology Notes To Jewish
Passengers Denied Boarding
A large number of Jewish passengers were denied boarding on a
flight from Frankfurt (FRA) to Budapest (BUD) on the basis of their
appearance as Jews, with Lufthansa employees collectively punishing
anyone who appeared Jewish for the mask violations of a much
smaller subset of passengers on a New York (JFK) to Frankfurt
flight.
The letter, which included the name of the passenger handwritten by
the CEO (and also hand signed by the CEO) contained the following
verbiage:
I am writing to you as the CEO of Lufthansa Airlines to express my
sincere apologies that you were denied boarding on your connecting
flight from Frankfurt to Budapest on May 4th. We deeply regret what
you experienced, not only for the travel inconvenience caused, but
especially for the personal impact that this incident may have had
on you.
Lufthansa has launched a thorough investigation to fully understand
what occurred on May 4th so that it may never be repeated. We are
embarrassed by what transpired because it is not reflective of who
we are as a company or the values of inclusion we embrace.
Lufthansa stands firm in opposition to racism, discrimination and
anti-Semitism in any form.
We would like to offer you reimbursement of your travel expenses
for the JFK-Frankfurt-Budapest flight, as well as any incidental
travel expenses that you may have incurred as a result of our
actions in not permitting you to travel on your onward journey to
Budapest. Additionally, Lufthansa agrees to pay compensation for
denied boarding in accordance with EU Regulation 261/2004. In order
to seek reimbursement please contact
customer.relations@lufthansa.com who shall coordinate that with
you. (Please see attachment for further instructions.) I want to
make clear that this reimbursement is made in good faith by
Lufthansa and will not require you to waive any other legal rights
that you may have as a result of being denied boarding.
Once again, I want to apologize to you and the other travelers for
what has happened on May 4th and allow us the opportunity to regain
the trust of the Jewish community.
Sincerely,
Jens Ritter
Since the incident, each apology from Lufthansa has become more
personal and more direct. While I do not doubt the sincerity of
this letter, I do wonder whether it will be effective or whether it
come too late.
The letters were only sent to those passengers who have not signed
onto a class action lawsuit against Lufthansa for what transpired
at Frankfurt Airport.
Class Action Lawsuit Heating Up
The American Center for Law & Justice (ALCJ), a conservative
advocacy group run by Jay Sekulow (who also served as one of
President Trump's attorneys during his first impeachment trial), is
suing on behalf of 26 passengers who were denied boarding. Others
may still join the lawsuit.
In a blog post, Sekulow explained:
It's hard to comprehend that in 2022 Jewish airline passengers
could be banned from a flight in Germany and surrounded by armed
German police, simply because they are Jewish, yet that is exactly
what has happened. This blatant public display of antisemitism is
beyond outrageous. . .
The ACLJ began receiving calls immediately after the incident,
including from a number of the victims who had been in touch with
Dov Hikind of Americans Against Antisemitism, and community
organizer Ezzie Schaffran, who referred them to the ACLJ. We have
already spoken with Lufthansa's legal team and put them on notice
regarding our representation. We will be moving forward toward
seeking justice for our clients in the coming days.
The right to exercise one's religion and to be free from
discrimination due to one's religious faith is an inalienable right
that is protected by both international law and the laws of many
nations. The [ALCJ] has been dedicated to defending this right
since its inception, and we will continue to do so here.
Antisemitic behavior and discrimination should never be tolerated.
The ACLJ has promised the lawsuit will be officially filed "in the
coming days."
CONCLUSION
The Lufthansa CEO Jens Ritter (not to be confused with the
Lufthansa Group CEO Carsten Spohr) has issued personalized
apologies to each of the Jewish passengers denied boarding on the
basis of their appearance as Jews (except for those who have
already joined a class action lawsuit against the airline). The
offer of compensation does not require waiving other legal rights,
as it appears now that Lufthansa will face a discrimination lawsuit
from a prominent American conservative advocacy group.[GN]
DOCTOR'S BEST: Sharae Casey Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARAE CASEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOCTOR'S BEST,
INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. finally approving a proposed settlement of this class
action;
2. approving the form and manner of giving notice to the
Class;
3. certifying the class of purchasers of "glucosamine
sulfate" labeled products manufactured by Defendant
Doctor's Best, Inc.;
4. providing an incentive award to Plaintiff; and
5. awarding Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wYsAJ0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
ENSERVCO CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 19, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Enservco Corporation ("Enservco" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ENSV) securities between May 13, 2021 and April
18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Enservco 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/enservco-corporation/. 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 to learn more about your rights.
On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed that it had "concluded that
the Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial
statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June
30, 2021 and September 30, 2021 should no longer be relied upon
largely because of the Company's accounting for a conversion of
debt to equity with a related party."
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.45, or 12.3%, to close at
$3.21 per share on March 28, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on March 31, 2022, the Company disclosed that it could not
timely file its 2021 annual financial report because it was "in the
process of restating [its] financial statements."
On this news. Enservco's stock fell $0.21, or 7.8%, to close at
$2.49 per share on April 1, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
Then, on April 4, 2022, Enservco announced that its Chief Financial
Officer would be departing and would no longer be an executive
officer or employee.
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.19, or 7.5%, to close at
$2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.
Then, on April 18, 2022, the Company disclosed that it would not
"be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2021 within the 15 day extension period provided by the Company's
12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again] amend its Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect
restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for
the Relevant Periods."
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.38, or 10.5%, to close at
$3.25 per share on April 19, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Enservco had
defective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (2) as a result, there were errors in
Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its
transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs; (3)
accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report
with the SEC; (4) the Company downplayed the true scope and
severity of its financial reporting issues; (5) accordingly, the
Company could not file its delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC
within its initially represented timeline; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enservco securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 19,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action 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
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
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]
ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Discloses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 19, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Enservco Corporation ("Enservco" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ENSV) securities between May 13, 2021 and April
18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Enservco 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/enservco-corporation/. 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 to learn more about your rights.
On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed that it had "concluded that
the Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial
statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June
30, 2021 and September 30, 2021 should no longer be relied upon
largely because of the Company's accounting for a conversion of
debt to equity with a related party."
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.45, or 12.3%, to close at
$3.21 per share on March 28, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on March 31, 2022, the Company disclosed that it could not
timely file its 2021 annual financial report because it was "in the
process of restating [its] financial statements."
On this news. Enservco's stock fell $0.21, or 7.8%, to close at
$2.49 per share on April 1, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
Then, on April 4, 2022, Enservco announced that its Chief Financial
Officer would be departing and would no longer be an executive
officer or employee.
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.19, or 7.5%, to close at
$2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.
Then, on April 18, 2022, the Company disclosed that it would not
"be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2021 within the 15 day extension period provided by the Company's
12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again] amend its Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect
restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for
the Relevant Periods."
On this news, Enservco's stock fell $0.38, or 10.5%, to close at
$3.25 per share on April 19, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Enservco had
defective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (2) as a result, there were errors in
Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its
transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs; (3)
accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report
with the SEC; (4) the Company downplayed the true scope and
severity of its financial reporting issues; (5) accordingly, the
Company could not file its delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC
within its initially represented timeline; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.[GN]
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Fodera Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05072-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order:
a. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
b. denying the Defendants' motions to strike;
c. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint; and
d. denying without prejudice the motions to seal.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Frank Fodera, Jr., Michael Bonella, and Genevieve
Billson seek certification of three classes of employees who worked
for Defendant Equinox and allegedly received unlawful wage
statements, were not provided nor paid for meal or rest breaks, and
performed off-the-clock work without proper pay. Also pending are a
motion for leave to file a FAC, motions to strike, and motions to
seal.
II. Background
The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Equinox, a
company that operates high-end fitness clubs across the world,
including more than 30 in California. Equinox offers its members
services that include individual personal training sessions, group
fitness classes, and Pilates. Fodera and Bonella worked for Equinox
as both personal trainers and group fitness instructors; Billson
was a Pilates instructor and group fitness instructor.
The Plaintiffs allege that Equinox's policies and practices related
to pay, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements violated several
provisions of California's Labor Code. They sued Equinox in state
court in April 2019; Equinox removed the case to the Court in
August of that year.
The Third Amended Complaint alleges seven causes of action under
the Labor Code (failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure
to provide meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay for rest
and recovery periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements,
and failure to pay wages earned at termination or discharge) as
well as a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The
Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Jan. 5, 2022.
III. Discussion
A. Motions to Strike and Evidentiary Objections
1. Motion to Strike Steiner and Fulimeni Declarations
Equinox moves to strike the declarations of two expert witnesses,
Laura Steiner and Teresa Fulimeni, proffered by the Plaintiffs in
support of their motion for class certification. Judge Orrick
denies the motion. He finds that the declarations of Steiner and
Fulimeni (as well as the survey underlying those declarations) are
admissible, at least at this point. Steiner and Fulimeni are both
qualified to testify as experts under Rule 702, and the proffered
testimony is relevant and reliable.
2. Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Surveys
Equinox also moves to strike the statements of 127 potential class
members that the plaintiffs filed with their class certification
motion. It argues that the survey responses are not shielded by
attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and
therefore should have been produced in disclosures or in response
to discovery requests. It also contends that the surveys should be
struck because they were "obtained by misleading means" and because
many are "illegible or have the wrong signature or no verifiable
signature.
Judge Orrick denies Equinox's motion to strike the surveys. He
holds that Equinox has not shown that it could not obtain the
substantial equivalent of the survey responses without undue
hardship. Equinox is correct that some of the surveys have
technical or other defects, which the Plaintiffs sought to address
in subsequent filings. Even striking the 36 surveys that Equinox
identified, the Plaintiffs may still use the majority of the
surveys. Because Judge Orrick's decision on the class certification
motion does not depend on the defective surveys, at this point, he
need not make individual determinations about the 127 surveys
covered by Equinox's motion. Should any of the defective surveys be
relevant to future motion work, Equinox may object to their use at
that time.
3. Remaining Objections
Both parties objected to other evidence submitted with the various
motions now before the Court. "Numerous district courts in this
circuit have long concluded that it is appropriate to consider
evidence at the class certification stage that may ultimately be
inadmissible." The evidentiary objections are therefore denied as
moot. Should the contested evidence be used in subsequent stages of
the litigation, the parties may object then.
B. Class Certification
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following three classes:
(1) The Wage Statement Class: All non-exempt employees
employed by defendant in California from April 3, 2018 through the
present, who received at least one wage statement with pay codes
Overtime Prem; CA Rest Break; Break Premium; PT Ses Cancel; CanXNo
show; Pilates No Show, and/or break violations.
(2) The Fitness Instructor Class: All individuals who worked
for defendant in one or more of the following positions -- Personal
Trainer, Group Fitness Instructor, and Pilates Instructor -- in
California from April 3, 2015 through the present.
(3) The Meal Period Regular Rate Class: All individuals who
worked as non-exempt employee for Equinox in California from April
3, 2015 through the present, and who received non-discretionary
remuneration and were paid any meal period premium payments in the
same pay period that the non-discretionary remuneration was
earned.
Judge Orrick holds that the proposed classes are numerous, and the
Plaintiffs are typical and adequate class representatives. They
have provided sufficient evidence of common questions of law and
fact -- namely, Equinox's alleged policies or practices -- that,
decided one way or another, will resolve the issues on a class-wide
basis. These questions predominate over individual issues, and
class litigation is a superior method of resolving them.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is granted. These classes are certified.
C. Motions to Seal
The parties filed six motions to seal in connection with the
referenced motions (Dkt. Nos. 67, 84, 93, 99, 106, 109).
Judge Orrick rules that the motions to seal are flawed in several
ways. First, the parties apply the wrong standard in each of the
six motions, asserting that there is good cause to seal the
documents, not that there are compelling reasons to do so. Next,
they often argue, at least in part, that documents are sealable
because they were designated as "confidential" or fall within the
ambit of a protective order. The parties' focus should be on
whether compelling reasons exist that warrant sealing these records
-- references to a stipulation or protective order allowing
documents to be marked confidential does not suffice.
Most importantly, the motions to seal are overbroad. Combined, the
six motions seek to seal approximately 175 records, most of which
in their entirety. Given the nature and volume of the sealing
requests, granting them as-is would make it difficult, if not
impossible, for the public to understand the basic facts underlying
the motion for class certification as well as my rationale for
granting it. In addition, the parties seek to seal certain exhibits
in their entirety when it appears that redactions would
sufficiently protect any sensitive information.
For these reasons, the parties' motions to seal are denied without
prejudice. Within two weeks of the issuance of the Order, the
parties will file a single renewed motion stating compelling
reasons for sealing the specific information at issue and otherwise
complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5. This joint motion should be
narrowly tailored, both in the number of exhibits the parties seek
to seal and in the content of those exhibits. Overbroad requests
will be denied.
Along with their motion, the parties must file two tables. The
first should list the exhibits or specific portions thereof that
the parties wish to seal, the docket numbers where those documents
appear, and the purported rationale for sealing (including a
citation to the declaration articulating that rationale). The
second should list the exhibits that the parties no longer wish to
seal and the docket numbers where those documents appear. Any
information not identified will be deemed not appropriately
sealed.
IV. Conclusion
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. The
Plaintiffs are appointed the Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as
the class counsel. The Defendants' motions to strike are denied.
The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a FAC is granted. The
motions to seal are denied without prejudice. The parties' renewed
joint motion to seal is due within two weeks of the issuance of the
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2k9khamm from Leagle.com.
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Entry of Summary Judgment in SXSW Suit Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SXSW, LLC, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-CV-00900-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge
Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, Austin Division, recommends that the District Court
denies Plaintiff SXSW's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, grants
Defendant Federal's Motion for Summary Judgment, and enters
judgment in favor of the Defendant.
I. Introduction
Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, filed Oct. 29, 2021; the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed Dec. 14, 2021; the parties' response and reply
briefs; and supplemental briefs filed May 16, 2022 by leave of
Court. On Jan. 24, 2022, the District Court referred the Motions to
Judge Hightower for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72,
and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the Court.
The Court held a hearing on the Motions on May 2, 2022.
II. Background
Plaintiff SXSW, a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Austin, Texas, brings the insurance
coverage suit against its insurer, Federal, an Indiana corporation
with its principal place of business in Warren, New Jersey. SXSW
alleges that Federal has a duty to defend and indemnify it in an
underlying suit.
On Aug. 15, 2019, Federal issued an insurance policy to SXSW for
the period of Aug. 17, 2019 to Aug. 17, 2020. The Policy includes
the following three types of coverage: (1) Directors & Officers and
Entity Liability Coverage Part; (2) Employment Practices Liability
Coverage Part; and (3) CyberSecurity Coverage Part. Id. The
Directors & Officers and Entity Liability Coverage (the "D&O
Policy") is at issue.
The entity liability provision of the D&O Policy states, in
relevant part, that: "The Company will pay, on behalf of an
Organization, Loss on account of a Claim first made against the
Organization during the Policy Period, or the extended Reporting
Period if applicable." Federal is the "Company," and SXSW is the
"Organization."
In addition, the D&O Policy contains a Defense and Settlement
Endorsement, which states that "the Insureds will have the option
to tender the defense of any Claim to the Company by notifying the
Company within a reasonable time after such Claim is first received
by the Insured, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after
the date such Claim is first received by the Insured."
SXSW organizes a music, film, and interactive festival known as
"South by Southwest" in Austin each March. The 2020 South by
Southwest Festival was scheduled for March 13 through March 20,
2020. On March 6, 2020, the festival was cancelled by the City of
Austin due to the COVID-19 pandemic. SXSW did not issue refunds to
customers who had purchased wristbands, tickets, passes, and badges
("Credentials") on the basis that the Participation and Credentials
Terms and Conditions that customers signed at the time of purchase
contained a "no-refund" provision. Instead, SXSW offered to let
customers defer their 2020 Credentials to a future year and allowed
them to buy Credentials for another year at a fifty percent
discount.
Approximately eighty percent of customers accepted this offer and
granted SXSW a release of claims. Some customers, however, asserted
claims against SXSW and requested refunds. The Plaintiffs in the
Underlying Suit (the "Bromley Plaintiffs") asserted claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
Specifically, the Bromley Plaintiffs alleged that SXSW breached its
contract with them by refusing to issue them refunds, arguing that
SXSW's no-refund provision is "unlawful and unenforceable." For
their unjust enrichment claim, the Bromley Plaintiffs alleged that,
by not issuing refunds, SXSW retained "benefits conferred on it by
Plaintiffs and the Class" in a manner "unjust and inequitable under
the circumstances." Finally, for their conversion claim, the
Bromley Plaintiffs alleged that SXSW "assumed and exercised
dominion and control" over the money they had paid for 2020
credentials "to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with, the rights
of Plaintiffs and the class." The Bromley Plaintiffs sought actual
damages, equitable monetary relief, injunctive and declaratory
relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On Feb. 18, 2022, after SXSW filed this coverage suit, the District
Court approved a settlement of the Underlying Suit and dismissed
the case with prejudice.
SXSW notified Federal of the Leventhal Demand on April 16, 2020 and
of the Underlying Suit on April 27, 2020. On May 18, 2020, Federal
notified SXSW that it would "neither defend nor indemnify" SXSW for
the Claim.
Federal gave two reasons for denying coverage. First, Federal
asserted that the Contract Exclusion provision "precludes coverage
for the Claim i[n] its entirety because the claimants' allegations
are based upon, arise from and are in consequence of liability in
connection with a contract to which SXSW is a party." Second,
Federal stated that the Professional Services Exclusion bars
coverage because SXSW "provided a service -- scheduling,
overseeing, organizing and managing South by Southwest -- for which
it collected a fee thus precluding coverage."
On Oct. 6, 2021, SXSW filed the action against Federal, alleging
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. SXSW also
seeks a declaratory judgment that Federal owes SXSW a duty to
defend and a duty to indemnify in the Underlying Suit.
III. Analysis
The insurance policy at issue is a Directors & Officers and Entity
Liability Coverage policy. The purpose of a D&O policy generally is
to protect directors and officers from personal liability resulting
from business decisions. The parties dispute whether Federal has a
duty to defend and indemnify SXSW in the Underlying Suit under the
terms of the D&O Policy.
A. Federal Has No Duty to Defend SXSW
Federal argues that it has no duty to defend or indemnify SXSW
because (1) one of the defendants in the Underlying Suit is not an
insured under the D&O Policy; (2) SXSW did not tender the defense
of the Underlying Suit to Federal; (3) SXSW has failed to
demonstrate that the Underlying Suit seeks a covered "Loss" under
the D&O Policy; (4) the Contract Exclusion provision bars coverage;
and (5) the Professional Services Exclusion bars coverage.
Judge Hightower holds that the Contract Exclusion provision
excludes coverage for all claims in the Underlying Suit. Therefore,
Federal had no duty to defend the Underlying Suit.
Judge Hightower finds that (i) because SXSW does not argue that
Federal has a duty to defend or indemnify SXSW, Federal's argument
regarding SXSW is irrelevant to whether Federal has a duty to
defend or indemnify SXSW; (ii) because SXSW gave notice to Federal
within 30 days of receiving "written demand first received by an
Insured for monetary damages or non-monetary relief," SXSW's
defense tender was timely; and (iii) the Bromley Plaintiffs did not
merely seek equitable injunctive relief, as Federal argues; rather,
they requested damages, which are a covered loss under the D&O
Policy.
Judge Hightower further finds that (i) because the Underlying Suit
clearly and unambiguously asserts a breach of contract claim, the
Contract Exclusion provision applies and there no coverage for the
breach of contract claim; (ii) the Contract Exclusion provision
applies to the Bromley Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and conversion
claims because those claims "arise from or in consequence of any
liability in connection with any oral or written contract or
agreement"; and (iii) because the D&O Policy provides coverage in
other circumstances, the Policy is not illusory.
B. Federal Has No Duty to Indemnify SXSW
Settlement of the Underlying Suit does not change application of
the Contract Exclusion provision. Federal has no duty to indemnify
SXSW based on the Contract Exclusion provision.
C. SXSW's Extra-Contractual Bad Faith and Statutory Claims
Finally, SXSW asserts extra-contractual claims pursuant to Texas
common law and the Texas Insurance Code. Such claims "generally
cannot be maintained when the breach of contract claim they arise
out of fails."
Judge Hightower holds that SXSW has not come forward with evidence
that Federal's conduct was "extreme" or that it suffered damages
independent of those that would have resulted from an alleged
wrongful denial of its claim. Hence, SXSW's bad faith and Texas
Insurance Code claims fail, and Federal's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to SXSW's extra-contractual claims should be granted.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Hightower concludes that SXSW's insurance Claim is not
covered under the D&O Policy. Accordingly, Federal's Motion for
Summary Judgment should be granted, and SXSW's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment should be denied.
V. Recommendation
Judge Hightower recommends that the District Court denies Plaintiff
SXSW's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, grants Defendant
Federal's Motion for Summary Judgment, and enters judgment in favor
of the Defendant.
Judge Hightower further orders that the case be removed from the
Magistrate Court's docket and returned to the docket of the Hon.
Robert Pitman.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2022 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/t37ez253 from
Leagle.com.
FIFTH THIRD: Court Dismisses Heavy & General Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEAVY & GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL 472 & 172 PENSION AND
ANNUITY FUNDS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, GREG D.
CARMICHAEL, and TAYFUN TUZUN, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 2176 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the amended
consolidated complaint with prejudice.
I. Introduction
An individual shareholder brought the putative securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others who purchased
common stock in Fifth Third from Nov. 9, 2016 through March 6,
2020, alleging that Defendants Fifth Third and its officers Greg D.
Carmichael and Tayfun Tuzun engaged in federal securities fraud.
After the Court appointed putative class member Heavy & General
Laborers' Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as the Lead
Plaintiff, it filed a consolidated complaint, in which it alleged
that Defendants Fifth Third, Carmichael, and Tuzun violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), codified at 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint for failure to
sufficiently allege scienter. The Lead Plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint, which the Defendants now move to dismiss.
II. Background
During a 2015 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB")
investigation, Fifth Third disclosed that bank employees had opened
unauthorized credit card accounts. In November 2016, the CFPB
issued a Civil Investigation Demand ("CID") addressed to Carmichael
that notified Fifth Third of an investigation into its sales
practices. Between 2017 and 2019, the CFPB issued five additional
CIDs to Fifth Third requesting information on the use of
unauthorized accounts and predatory consumer practices.
In 2020, the CFPB filed an enforcement action against Fifth Third,
seeking to stop ongoing violations of consumer protection statutes.
In the complaint, the CFPB alleged that "even after learning of
unauthorized Fifth Third consumer-financial products by 2008, Fifth
Third failed to change its sales practices to avoid consumer harm."
The complaint further alleged that, even after learning of the
unauthorized consumer-financial products and services, Fifth Third
continued to push sales practices that likely would cause the
opening of unauthorized services or products.
CFPB filed an amended pleading in the enforcement action detailing
additional allegations against Fifth Third, including that Fifth
Third knew that its admissions "understate the real number of
unauthorized account openings and other improper sales conduct" and
that there are "hundreds of thousands" of accounts "that bear
indicia of non-authorization." Furthermore, according to the
amended complaint, members of Fifth Third's senior management knew
of internal data that would have been useful to identify
unauthorized accounts "for at least years 2010 to 2021," but "chose
not to attempt to identify unauthorized consumer-financial
products" beyond those previously disclosed "because greater
identification might cause Fifth Third reputational and financial
harm."
In March 2019, Fifth Third completed a $4.7 billion acquisition of
MB Financial, a Chicago-based company. MB Financial shareholders
approved the acquisition in part based on Fifth Third's
Registration Statement, which highlighted the historical
performance of its common stock. Fifth Third had to use that common
stock to fund 90% of the $4.7 billion acquisition price because
Fifth Third did not have sufficient capital to complete the
acquisition with cash. As such, Fifth Third issued approximately
131 million new shares of common stock that, as of March 22, 2019,
traded at the price of $24.62 per share.
Fifth Third disclosed the CFPB investigation and anticipated
lawsuit in its FY 2019 Form 10-K on March 2, 2020. Fifth Third's
stock price dropped from $22.20 on March 6 to $18.30 on March 9, a
$3.90 per share decline. Although the market was declining on March
9, Fifth Third's stock price fell more than the market as a whole
and the stock price of peer banks. Fifth Third's stock continued to
decline, losing 28% per share between March 9 and March 12.
During the Class Period, which began on Nov. 9, 2016, when Fifth
Third filed its Form 10-Q quarterly report with the SEC, the Lead
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions concerning Fifth Third's: (1)
business practices and risk management systems; (2) Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics; (3) product cross-selling and consumer
business; (4) employee incentive compensation; and (5) risk
disclosures.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading and omitted material facts because the
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) the unauthorized accounts and
sales practices and the CFPB investigation, "which had been ongoing
since at least 2008 and necessitated the intervention of corporate
headquarters (including the involvement of the Individual
Defendants)"; (2) senior management's failure to remediate these
illegal sales practices; (3) the CFPB investigation and
"Defendants' conscious failure to remediate" the sales practices
"since November 2016;" (4) Fifth Third's admission of the opening
of unauthorized accounts during the CFPB investigation in 2015 and
2017; and (5) the likely CFPB enforcement action and "extreme
regulatory, legal, reputational and financial peril" to Fifth Third
because of the investigation, admissions, and failure to
remediate.
III. Analysis
The Lead Plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint sets forth two
claims: First, the Lead Plaintiff alleges that all the Defendants
have violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
and second, the Lead Plaintiff seeks to hold Carmichael and Tuzun
individually liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
"controlling persons" of Fifth Third. The Defendants move to
dismiss both claims.
A. Section 10(b) Claim (Count I)
The Defendants argue that the Lead Plaintiff does not satisfy the
pleading requirements to assert its claim for securities fraud
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Section 10(b) and SEC Rule
10b-5 "prohibit fraudulent or misleading statements of material
fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a security."
To state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b), a plaintiff
must allege that "(1) the defendant made a false statement or
omission (2) of material fact (3) with scienter (4) in connection
with the purchase or sale of securities (5) upon which the
plaintiff justifiably relied (6) and that the false statement
proximately caused the plaintiff's damages."
The Defendants seek dismissal of the Section 10(b) claim on the
basis that the Lead Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead any
actionable misstatement or omission of material fact and on the
independent and sufficient basis that the Lead Plaintiff does not
allege facts to support a strong inference of scienter on the part
of any Defendant.
Judge Ellis opines that the Lead Plaintiff has not sufficiently
alleged that Fifth Third made materially misleading statements.
Among other things, she finds that the statement about an oversight
program designed to "mitigate" compliance risk through consistent
business practices is general and aspirational, and therefore not
actionable. The highlighted statements from Fifth Third's Code also
do not assert that the bank was in compliance or that employees had
not opened unauthorized accounts.
Carmichael's statement about "opportunities" and "synergies" also
does not make concrete representations that might make it the kind
of substantive statement upon which an investor would rely. And
lastly, Fifth Third's statements in SEC Proxy Statements that its
incentive compensation was aligned with shareholder interests and
did not encourage inappropriate risk, when placed in their proper
context as a description of executive compensation, do not
implicate the alleged incentivizing of branch employees.
Judge Ellis also opines that having examined the Lead Plaintiff's
arguments concerning scienter individually and collectively, she
cannot find sufficient allegations giving rise to a strong
inference of scienter on either Carmichael's or Tuzun's part. Among
other things, she finds that (i) the amended consolidated complaint
does not present sufficient facts to create an inference that
Carmichael or Tuzun had knowledge of the alleged sales activity;
(ii) the Lead Plaintiff points to nothing in the CFPB litigation
that suggests that Carmichael or Tuzun had personal knowledge of
any problematic practices at the time they made the statements at
issue; and (iii) the Lead Plaintiff has failed to tie the timing of
the sale to any specific misleading or false statements or to
allege anything specific except that a sale was made. As a result,
Judge Ellis also cannot impute scienter to Fifth Third.
B. Section 20(a) Claim (Count II)
The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that Carmichael and Tuzun violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "controlling persons" of Fifth
Third. "Section 20(a) provides a basis for holding individuals
liable for acts of securities fraud if they control other
individuals or businesses that violate the securities laws."
However, "to state a claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must
first adequately plead a primary violation of securities
laws--here, a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5." Because
the Lead Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead its Section 10(b)
claim, its claim for control person liability under Section 20(a)
also fails at this stage.
C. Dismissal With Prejudice
Because the Lead Plaintiff has had several opportunities to state a
valid claim and further amendment would be futile, Judge Ellis
dismisses the amended consolidated complaint with prejudice.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Ellis concludes that because the Lead Plaintiff fails to
sufficiently plead false statements or omissions and fails to
allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter on
the part of any Defendant, she grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Judge Ellis enters judgment for the
Defendants and terminates the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtdrt3s8 from Leagle.com.
FLACK GLOBAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to July 5
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakara v. Flack Global
Metals, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01146 (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge
Michael T Liburdi entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
for extension of time to file motion to certify class:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file the motion to certify
class is extended to July 5, 2022.
-- There will be no further extensions absent a showing of
extraordinary circumstances.
The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment
discrimination.
Flack Global Metals is a mining & metals company.[CC]
FRESH HARVEST: Extension of Time for Filing Class Cert Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIGOBERTO SARMIENTO and
GUSTAVO LUEVANO-VACA, and others similarly situated, v. FRESH
HARVEST, INC., FRESH HARVEST FOODS, INC., RAVA RANCHES, INC., and
SMD LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-07974-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
Present New
Deadline Deadline
-- Deadline for Filing of Nov. 18, 2022 Feb. 28, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Opposition to Class Jan. 13, 2023 April 29, 2023
Certification:
-- Reply in Support of Feb. 10, 2023 May 26, 2023
Class Certification:
Fresh Harvest is a labor provider, staffing and harvesting company
to agriculture industry in the western United States.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38OD98h at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ana C. Toledo, Esq.
Lindsey Berg-James, Esq.
NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS
A Professional Corporation
333 Salinas Street
Post Office Box 2510
Salinas, CA 93902-2510
Telephone: (831) 424-1414
Facsimile: (831) 424-1975
GARDEN OF LIFE: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider CLP Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLEAN LABEL PROJECT FOUNDATION, Plaintiff v. GARDEN OF
LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-3229 (RC) (D.D.C.), Judge
Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issues a Memorandum Opinion:
a. denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss;
and
b. granting remand to the D.C. Superior Court.
I. Introduction
After an order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
from the Court, Clean Label Project Foundation ("CLP") filed a
motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CLP asks the Court to reconsider
its judgment based on an alleged "intervening change of controlling
law," citing Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corp., 258
A.3d 174 (D.C. 2021) ("ALDF"). In the alternative, CLP asks the
Court for remand.
II. Background
CLP, a nonprofit organization, sued Garden of Life under the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"),
D.C. Code Section 28-3901 et seq. The CPPA allows a nonprofit
organization to bring an action "on behalf of itself or any of its
members, or on any such behalf and on behalf of the general
public," and also allows a "public interest organization" to bring
actions "on behalf of the interests of a consumer or a class of
consumers."
CLP alleges that Garden of Life engaged in unlawful trade practices
under the CPPA when it marketed and sold prenatal vitamin products
in a manner that misled consumers into believing that the products
were free of contaminants and superior to competing products, when
in fact they were contaminated with toxic heavy metals, pesticides,
and BPA. It also alleges that the presence of these contaminants,
which are "injurious to health," render Garden of Life's prenatal
vitamins "adulterated" in violation of D.C. Code Section 48-103.
CLP filed the action in the D.C. Superior Court on Aug. 25, 2020.
Garden of Life removed to the Court on Nov. 9, 2020, alleging that
removal was proper under the Class Actions Fairness Act because
"CPPA is a 'similar State statute' that 'authorizes' class actions
to be brought by one or more representative persons." A few weeks
after removal, Garden of Life filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing.
On Sept. 23, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's motion. CLP
filed the pending motion on Oct. 21, 2021, asking the Court to
reconsider that dismissal order. According to CLP, it has standing
under "CPPA, specifically D.C. Code Section 28-3905(k)(1)(D) in
light of the recent ALDF decision in the D.C. Court of Appeals."
Thus, CLP seeks reconsideration or, in the alternative, remand to
D.C. Superior Court. Garden of Life opposed, and CLP replied.
III. Analysis
CLP purports to request that the Court "reconsiders its order of
dismissal under new controlling intervening law and manifest
injustice and error of law and facts." It, however, does not point
to any manifest injustice or error of law and facts. Instead, CLP
repeats its faulty notions about standing under Article III of the
Constitution, which the Court addressed and rejected in its
previous ruling.
Judge Contreras finds that CLP's argument in the pending motion
rests solely on an alleged change in controlling law which has no
effect on the Court. He says, the intervening case that CLP relies
on -- ALDF, 258 A.3d 174 (D.C. 2021) -- does not bestow subject
matter jurisdiction as CLP claims. CLP's mere recital of its
previous arguments and the decision in ALDF fail to establish an
intervening change of controlling law for subject matter
jurisdiction. Separate from identifying ALDF and other cases that
do not change thie Court's subject matter jurisdiction, CLP has not
articulated why this Court should grant relief under Rules 59(e) or
60
Hence, the case does not warrant reconsideration under Rules 59(e)
and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and CLP fails to
show how ALDF changes or controls federal law regarding subject
matter jurisdiction. Thus, Judge Contreras denies CLP's motion to
reconsider.
However, despite CLP's previous failure to request remand in lieu
of dismissal, Judge Contreras grants remand to D.C. Superior Court.
He finds that the case was originally in the D.C. Superior Court
until Garden of Life removed it. And although CLP is incorrect that
ALDF loosens the constitutional injury-in-fact requirement that the
Court must abide by, ALDF does make clear that the lack of an
injury-in-fact would not bar the D.C. Superior Court from
exercising jurisdiction over the case. Thus, remand could allow CLP
to "fulfill legitimate interests" in light of ALDF by pursuing this
claim in Superior Court.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Contreras denies reconsideration
and, alternatively, grants remand to the D.C. Superior Court. An
order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion is separately and
contemporaneously issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2mjy8nae from Leagle.com.
GEICO CASUALTY: Day Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Day, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-02103-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All California residents who purchased personal
automobile, motorcycle, or RV insurance from GEICO
covering any portion of the time period from March 1, 2020
to the present" with respect to Counts I and III of the
Amended Complaint;
2. Appointing Named Plaintiff Jessica Day as class
representative; and
3. Appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Stephan Zouras, LLP, and
Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC as class counsel.
This class action challenges GEICO's unfair application of
pre-pandemic auto insurance 3 rates during the changed
circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that
GEICO enjoyed excess revenue at the expense of its policyholders
due to the drastic, at times government-mandated, reduction in
driving resulting from COVID-19. Although GEICO provided the "GEICO
Giveback," a one-time 15% premium credit, this was insufficient in
both amount and timeframe to remedy the excessive premiums paid.
The laintiff Jessica Day is a customer of GEICO General Insurance
Company. The Plaintiff purchased a renewal California auto
insurance policy from GEICO for the period beginning on February
10, 2020 and ending on August 10, 2020, for which she paid a
premium of $1,773.80.
She received no pandemic-related premium relief from GEICO during
this time period. The Plaintiff again renewed for the period
beginning on August 10, 2020 and ending on February 10, 2021; her
premium was $871.20, to which an insufficient "GEICO Giveback
credit" of $130.68 was applied.
The Defendants sell personal automobile insurance in states around
the country, including California.
GEICO is among the auto insurers that failed to issue adequate
COVID-19 premium elief and, as a result, enjoyed a substantial
windfall in profits. GEICO dubbed its premium relief program the
"GEICO Giveback."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GvPIS5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melody L. Sequoia, Esq.
THE SEQUOIA LAW FIRM
530 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 102
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 561-4791
Facsimile: (650) 561-4817
E-mail: melody@sequoialawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Robert L. Schug, Esq.
Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: helland@nka.com
morgan@nka.com
schug@nka.com
craimey@nka.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Ewing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA EWING, et al., v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order granting
plaintiffs motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to certify the class.
Each of the plaintiffs and potential class members was insured by
either GEICO Indemnity Company, Government Employees Insurance
Company, or GEICO General Insurance Company under identical
policies.
The plaintiffs seek classification of the following class:
"All insureds under a Georgia policy issued by GEICO covering
a private passenger auto for physical damage who submitted a
physical damage claim on a loss occurring during the period
six years before the filing of this lawsuit through December
31, 2019, determined by GEICO to be a covered total loss
claim, whose total loss vehicles were listed in the motor
vehicle ad valorem assessment manual in effect at the time of
loss, and whose claim’s total loss payment did not include
title ad valorem tax greater than the title ad valorem tax
due based on the fair market value identified by the motor
vehicle ad valorem assessment manual."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NHKuFm at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Extension of Time for Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
joint stipulation extending discovery, class certification briefing
schedule, and hearing date as follows:
-- Close of Fact Discovery: September 26, 2022
-- Initial Expert Witness October 13, 2022
Disclosures:
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness January 20, 2023
Disclosures:
-- Close of Expert Discovery: February 16, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification: February 23, 2023
-- Opposition to Motion for March 30, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Reply In Support of Class April 27, 2023
Certification:
Google is an American multinational technology company that focuses
on artificial intelligence, search engine, online advertising,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Parties motion dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NCaLES at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293 6858
Facsimile: (415) 999 9695
E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
- and -
Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
44 Montgomery Street, 41 st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293 6858
Facsimile: (415) 999 9695
E-mail: brichardson@bsfllp.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
Lori C. Arakaki, Esq.
Argemira Florez, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
One Front Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: bhur@willkie.com
sagnolucci@willkie.com
esantacana@willkie.com
larakaki@willkie.com
aflorez@willkie.com
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Underpays Servers, Morales et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CLAUDIO MORALES, JAMIE SUTTON, JASMINE COOLEY, MEGAN
BOYER, and JESSICA JORDAN, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs v. HARVEST HOSPITALITIES, INC.,
SATTAR SHAIK, HARVEST ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, HARVEST PASADENA,
INC., HARVEST-GAMBRILLS, INC., HARVEST KENT ISLAND, INC., HARVEST
SALISBURY, INC., HARVEST OCEAN CITY, INC., HARVEST OLNEY, INC.,
HARVEST MANASSAS MALL, INC., HARVEST MANASSAS, INC., HARVEST 493,
INC., HARVEST 591, INC., HARVEST 575, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00772-CCW (W.D. Penn., May 25, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiffs as an individual and collective action against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment
Collection Law, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Virginia
Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as servers and
non-servers staff position – Morales from on or about July 15,
2018 until on or about October 7, 2018, Sutton from on or about
July 23, 2017 until on or about June 9, 2020, Cooley from on or
about May 11, 2018 until on or about April 30, 2020, Boyer from in
or around February 2019 until in or around October 2020, and Jordan
from on or about May 30, 2016 until on or about July 17, 2018.
According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly engaged in
several, common practices and policies that resulted in the
underpayment of promised wages, overtime wages, and minimum wages.
Specifically, the Defendants' restaurant managers and district
managers intentionally falsified the time records of the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees by modifying employees' time
records in the Defendants' computerized timekeeping and payroll
systems. The Defendants' restaurant managers regularly ordered
their employees to "clock out" of the computer system but required
them to continue working off the clock. In addition, the
Defendants' restaurant managers required servers to claim more in
tips than they actually received and utilized tips to satisfy their
minimum wage obligation to the servers and non-servers employees,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other unpaid wages, liquidated damages and statutory penalties,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper.
The Corporate Defendants own and operates a restaurant chain. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Tel: (301) 220-2200
Fax: (240) 553-1747
E-mail: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Entered in Jackson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOPANGA JACKSON, et al.,
v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00428-CJC-DFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling
order:
1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed by December 7, 2023.
2. Discovery motions must be filed and heard prior to this
date.
3. The parties shall have until February 5, 2024 to file and
have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
amend the pleadings.
4. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, April 8,
2024 at 03:00 PM.
5. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
at 08:30 AM.
6. The parties shall have until December 21, 2023 to conduct
settlement proceedings.
7. The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status
Report no later than five days 4 after the ADR proceeding
is completed advising the Court of their settlement
efforts and status.
8. The Plaintiff shall have until July 10, 2023 to file and
have heard any class certification motion.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, appliances, and
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NIj6ak at no extra charge.[CC]
HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Labour-Inducing Drug Oxytocin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ruest was an obstetrics nurse at the Moncton Hospital.
Horizon Health Network announced in March 2019 it fired an unnamed
nurse following an internal investigation. (CBC) Lawyers for
Horizon Health Network and Nicole Ruest urged a judge to keep a
publication ban in place on some information in a proposed class
action lawsuit against the nurse and health authority.
The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of mothers who believe they
were improperly administered the labour-inducing drug oxytocin. It
alleges Ruest administered the drug to potentially "hundreds" of
pregnant women at the Moncton Hospital without their consent.
Both Ruest and Horizon are named as defendants in the proposed
class action case. Both deny wrongdoing. The lawsuit's claims have
not been proven in court.
A certification hearing began last fall to determine if the case
can proceed as a class action, a required step before it can
continue to trial. The hearing was delayed when new information
emerged.
Details remain under a court-ordered publication ban imposed by
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Denise LeBlanc.
Lawyer says information 'multi-level hearsay'
LeBlanc has issued a ruling related to the admissibility of the new
information, determining at least some is inadmissible.
Horizon and Ruest's lawyers appeared in court by video asking the
judge to keep the publication ban in place. It would cover
affidavits, portions of legal filings and a portion of the judge's
ruling referring to the information.
Andrew Faith, a lawyer for Ruest, argued that public dissemination
of the information would harm his client's ability to fairly defend
herself. He described the information as "multi-level hearsay."
"Here we have evidence that's too unreliable to be admissible in a
court proceeding," Faith said.
He said publication could make it harder for Ruest to find expert
witnesses or other witnesses to testify as part of her defence. He
said there's been no proceeding that's found Ruest guilty of
misconduct.
Lawyer John McKiggin, representing the mothers, argued the
publication ban shouldn't continue.
He said Ruest's interests have been protected by the court as some
of the information has been ruled inadmissible and won't be
considered by the judge.
McKiggin also indicated much of what's covered by the publication
ban is already in the public domain through Horizon's own news
conference, news release and previous news stories.
Horizon's lawyer largely echoed Faith's position.
LeBlanc told the lawyers it will take her at least a month to write
her decision on the publication ban issue.
"I will file a decision as soon as I possibly can," LeBlanc said.
A certification decision has yet to be made by the judge. It's
unclear when that may take place.
Horizon itself announced at a news conference in March 2019 it
fired an unnamed nurse following an internal investigation. The
health authority said RCMP were investigating.
The New Brunswick Nurses Association said in April 2019 it had
suspended the nurse's licence. Later that year, it named Ruest on
its website and said her registration was suspended pending the
outcome of a discipline committee hearing.
It's not clear whether that hearing has taken place. The
association did not respond to a request for comment.
Horizon Health argues against admission of new information in
mothers' class-action lawsuit
Class action proposed over alleged misuse of labour-inducing drug
at Moncton Hospital
In April 2019, the proposed class action was filed naming Ruest.
The statement of claim says the women believe they received
oxytocin between September 2010 and March 2019, as a result of
Ruest's actions, and suffered harm as a result.
The oxytocin was allegedly administered in at least one case via
small punctures in an IV saline bag, according to the statement of
claim.
That time frame is when Ruest worked in the labour and delivery
unit, according to Horizon's statement of defence.
Horizon has filed a cross claim against Ruest.
Ruest hasn't been charged
Horizon's court filing says obstetricians at the hospital were
concerned about the increasing number of emergency caesarean
sections requiring general anesthetic and were trying to determine
the reason for it.
"The defendant hospital states that if the defendant Ruest was
administering oxytocin to mothers who were in labour at the Moncton
Hospital without a physician's orders, she did so without the
knowledge and consent of the defendant hospital and physicians, and
was acting outside of her duties as an obstetrical nurse and
outside the scope of her professional practice and was on a frolic
of her own," a court filing by Horizon states.
In 2020, CBC reported Ruest wouldn't face criminal charges after
Crown prosecutors determined there was insufficient evidence to
proceed with charges. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Case Management Order Entered in Zakikhani Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMTIN ZAKIKHANI, KIMBERLY
ELZINGA, THEODORE MADDOX JR., MICHAEL SUMMA, JACQUELINE WASHINGTON,
PATTI TALLEY, ANA OLACIREGUI, ELAINE PEACOCK, MELODY IRISH, and
DONNA TINSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA
CORPORATION, and KIA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01584-SB-JDE
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered a case
management order as follows:
Event Current New
Date Date
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for June 10, 2022 July 25, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Defendants' Opposition Aug. 9, 2022 Sept. 23, 2022
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply to Sept. 8, 2022 Oct. 24, 2022
Defendants' Opposition:
-- Class Certification Oct. 7, 2022 Nov. 11, 2022
Hearing:
Hyundai Motor is a South Korean multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t2QJf0 at no extra charge.[CC]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Due July 25
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMTIN ZAKIKHANI, KIMBERLY
ELZINGA, THEODORE MADDOX JR., MICHAEL SUMMA, JACQUELINE
WASHINGTON, PATTI TALLEY, ANA OLACIREGUI, ELAINE PEACOCK, MELODY
IRISH, and DONNA , individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, KIA CORPORATION, and KIA AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01584-SB-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the class certification deadlines by 45
days as follows:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
July 25, 2022;
-- Deadline for the Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification September 23, 2022; and
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to the Defendant's
Opposition October 24, 2022; and
Hyundai Motor is a South Korean multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wUp0iT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (332) 216-2101
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Rachel E. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
rachelf@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Brian M. Hogen, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: bhogan@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Lynch Carpenter LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer A. Lenze, Esq.
LENZE LAWYERS, PLC.
1300 Highland Avenue, Suite 207
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 322-8800
Facsimile: (310) 322-8811
E-mail: jlenze@lenzelawyers.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD &
WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lance A. Etcheverry, Esq.
Michael Minahan, Esq.
Caroline Van Ness, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-4500
E-mail: lance.etcheverry@skadden.com
Michael.minahan@skadden.com
Caroline.vanness@skadden.com
IBERDROLA SA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Levesque Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVESQUE, et al v.
IBERDROLA SA, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00389 (D. Maine), the Hon.
Judge John C. Nivison entered an order on motion to amend
scheduling order:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to designate June 24, 2022
expert witnesses is extended to:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file July 22, 2022
motion for class certification is
extended to:
-- Deadline for Defendants to designate Sept. 9, 2022
expert witnesses is extended to:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file Oct. 21, 2022
opposition to motion for class
certification is extended to:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Nov. 18, 2022
reply in support of motion for
class certification is extended to:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve July 29, 2022
written settlement demand is
extended to:
-- Deadline for Defendants to serve Sept. 20, 2022
written response to settlement
demand is extended to:
-- Deadline to complete discovery Dec. 23, 2022
shall remain:
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Iberdrola is a Spanish multinational electric utility company based
in Bilbao, Spain.[CC]
IDAHO: Court Grants Joint Bid to Adjust Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA DREYER, as parent
and natural guardian of B.B., et al., v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND WELFARE, an agency of the State of Idaho, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00211-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge David C. Nye entered
an order granting the motion to adjust scheduling order as
follows:
1. All class-certification discovery will be completed by
July 29, 2022.
2. Class Certification Motion Deadline: September 15, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NJ7B28 at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Melzer Suit Over Alleged BIPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HELENE MELZER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant,
Case 3:22-cv-03149-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 26, 2022) alleges violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Neutrogena Skin360
technology utilizes a sophisticated and precise facial recognition
and skin analysis program. The Defendant, through its Neutrogena
Skin360 technology, actively collects, captures, uses, and stores
detailed biometric identifiers and biometric information, including
scans of the facial geometry of the Plaintiff and other Illinois
consumers. The biometric data is tied to the individuals' names,
birthdates and other personally identifying information, says the
suit.
However, the Defendant does not provide any of the required
disclosures, nor does it obtain written consent. The Defendant also
failed to create, develop, publicly disclose, follow and comply
with data retention and destruction policies for biometric data,
the suit added.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
KANGMEI PHARMA: Investors Collect $364M in Fraud Suit Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
What's new: China's scandal-plagued drugmaker Kangmei
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (600518.SH) paid 2.46 billion yuan ($364
million) in compensation to investors, closing the country's first
securities class-action lawsuit against a fraudulent issuer.
More than 52,000 Kangmei investors received cash payments under the
company's reorganization plan, according to Li Chao, vice chairman
of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), at a briefing
Friday.
Among the investors, 99.4% are small retail investors with losses
of less than 500,000 yuan, Li said.
The background: Kangmei, one of China's biggest publicly traded
drugmakers, was accused of financial reporting fraud involving 88.6
billion yuan of overstatements between 2016 and 2018. Regulators
found that the company used fake bank deposit slips to inflate cash
reserves, forged documents for nonexistent business activities and
transferred company funds to related parties to trade in its own
stock.
In November 2021, a court in Guangzhou made a landmark ruling in
the country's first securities class-action lawsuit, ordering
Kangmei to pay 2.46 billion yuan to more than 50,000 shareholders
who lost money because of the fraud.
In January, Ma Xingtian, the former chairman of Kangmei, was
sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined 1.2 million yuan for
manipulating the securities market, failure to disclose important
information and bribery. [GN]
KESSENICH'S LTD: Filing of Conditional Status Bid Due August 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MAKAROFF, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KESSENICH'S LTD.
OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00020-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: June 22, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' motion for August 17, 2022
conditional certification of
the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) class:
-- Motions & Briefs To Certify/ February 3, 2023
Decertify Classes:
Responses: March 3, 2023
Replies: March 17, 2023
-- Deadline for filing dispositive August 4, 2023
motions:
-- Discovery Cutoff: November 13, 2023
-- Settlement Letters: December 1, 2023
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and December 15, 2023
all motions in limine:
-- Objections: January 12, 2024
-- Final Pretrial Conference: January 24, 2024
-- Trial: February 5, 2024
Kessenich's Ltd. of America is in the restaurant equipment and
supplies.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z5vjl1 at no extra charge.[CC]
LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Response Due June 8
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goren v. LawPracticeCLE,
L.L.C., Case No. 8:21-cv-01503 (M.D. Fla. ), the Hon. Judge William
F. Jung entered an endorsed order granting motion for extension of
time to file response to certify Class.
-- Response due is by June 8, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Settles Suit Over Pension Fund for $1.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Analog Devices, which acquired
Linear Technology Corp., Linear Technology LLC and Linear
Technology Administrative Committee a few years ago, has agreed to
a class action settlement benefiting participants in the Linear
Technology 401(k) plan.
The class is made up of anyone who was a Linear Technology LLC
401(k) plan participant at any point between May 6, 2013, and Jan.
18, 2019.
Analog Devices completed its acquisition of Linear Technology Corp.
in 2017, according to the company website. The company makes
analog, mixed-signal and digital signal processing integrated
circuits used in various electronics.
However, according to a class action lawsuit, the company
mismanaged its 401(k) plan.
The defendants allegedly not only failed to prudently manage the
plan investments, but also failed to control the cost of the plan
in the best interest of its participants and beneficiaries, thereby
breaching its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
Under the terms of the Linear Technology 401(k) settlement, class
members will be eligible for a payment from the $1.5 million
settlement fund after expenses such as attorneys' fees and
incentive awards have been deducted.
Class members will receive proportionate payments based on the
recordkeeping fees they paid during the class period.
Current plan participants as of the date of payment distribution
will have their payment deposited directly into their The
Investment Partnership Plan (TIP Plan) account.
Former participants who wish to roll their payment over into
another retirement account must submit a rollover form.
Former participants who do not submit a timely rollover form will
have a check mailed to them or a qualified retirement account in
their name to their last address.
Any funds remaining from uncashed checks will be paid to the TIP
Plan to offset plan administrative fees and expenses.
A final hearing in the Linear Technology 401(k) settlement will
take place July 15, 2022.
The deadline to object to the settlement is June 15, 2022.
The deadline for former participants to submit their rollover form
is also June 15, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The class is made up of anyone who was a Linear Technology LLC
401(k) plan participant at any point between May 6, 2013, and Jan.
18, 2019.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable
Rollover Form
FORMER PARTICIPANTS CLICK HERE TO FILE A ROLLOVER FORM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Rollover Form Deadline
06/15/2022
Case Name
Bouvy v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-881-DMS-BLM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Final Hearing
07/15/2022
Settlement Website
LinearTechnologyERISASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Linear Technology 401(k) Plan Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2003
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2003
info@LinearTechnologyERISASettlement.com
855-579-2789
Class Counsel
Rafey S Balabanian
EDELSON PC
Defense Counsel
Ada W Dolph [GN]
LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey, et al., Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey, et al., v.
LinkedIn Corporation et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05704-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and
Marianne Robinson move the Court for an Order:
1. certifying the action as a class action for all purposes
of liability and relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and certifying the proposed class;
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler P.C. as Class
Counsel.
In this Action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, LinkedIn
Corporation, the Board of Directors of LinkedIn Corporation, and
the 401(k) Committee a/k/a LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee,
breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plan under the
16 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The Plaintiffs are former employees of LinkedIn, and former
participants in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7).
The Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA pursuant to
29 U.S.C. sections 1002 and 1102.
The Plaintiffs assert claims that Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties by selecting and retaining the Active Suite and
certain other investments challenged in this Action.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wX6Mxl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP, Esq.
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 540-5505
E-mail: ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
- and -
Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
16311 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436-2152
Telephone: (818) 788-0877
Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
E-mail: Germain@lalawyer.com
LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud 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 Florida, captioned Nguyen v. LMP Automotive
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-61019, on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired LMP Automotive
Holdings, Inc. ("LMP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LMPX) securities
between June 29, 2021 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange 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 LMP 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/lmp-automotive-holdings-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.
On November 16, 2021, after the market closed, when LMP filed a
notification of inability to timely file its quarterly report for
third quarter 2021. It also identified several material weaknesses
in its internal control over financial reporting, including that
"[t]he Company did not maintain a formalized set of accounting
policies" and "[t]he Company did not maintain effective controls
over the review and approval of journal entries, account
reconciliations, review of significant accounts and disclosures,
and adequate documentation of management assumptions, estimates and
judgments."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.74, or 5.5%, to
close at $12.66 per share on November 17, 2021.
Then, on March 31, 2022, LMP revealed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2021 annual report "primarily [as] a result of its
ongoing evaluation of (i) the proper identification and elimination
of intercompany transactions, (ii) estimates of chargeback reserves
for finance and insurance products and (iii) various financial
presentation matters related to the Company's business, including
as it relates to the presentation, characterization and amounts of
such items in prior fiscal quarters."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.19, or 3.8%, to
close at $4.81 per share on April 1, 2022.
Then, on May 17, 2022, after the market closed, LMP disclosed that
it could not timely file its Q1 2021 quarterly report due to the
previously announced ongoing evaluation. LMP further disclosed that
due to errors in the Company's quarterly reports during fiscal year
2021, such reports "will likely need to be restated." The Company
also disclosed that these errors may impact "certain previously
disclosed material weaknesses in the registrant's controls over
financial reporting."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.07 per share, or
1.5%, to close at $4.60 per share on May 18, 2022.
Then, on May 19, 2022, after the market closed, LMP revealed that
it would restate the financial statements for quarterly periods in
fiscal 2021 "primarily due to the following errors: (i) the
improper identification and elimination of intercompany
transactions, (ii) incorrect estimates of chargeback reserves for
finance and insurance products, and (iii) certain financial
statement misclassifications impacting various balance sheet and
income statement financial statement captions in the Relevant
Periods." These results caused a decrease in total revenues up to
$15 million for third quarter 2021, up to $8 million for second
quarter 2021, and up to $1 million for first quarter 2021. As a
result, the Company stated that "material weaknesses exist in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and that the
Company's disclosure controls and procedures were not effective."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
4.4%, to close at $4.26 per share on May 20, 2022.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: investors: (1) that the Company engaged in the improper
identification and elimination of intercompany transactions; (2)
that the Company used incorrect estimates for chargeback reserves
for finance and insurance products; (3) that the Company had
misclassified certain items in its financial statements which
impacting balance sheet and income statement financial statement
captions; (4) that there were material weaknesses in LMP's internal
control over financial reporting; (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company overstated its revenue; (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company would restate certain of its
previously issued financial statements and results; and (7) 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 LMP 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]
LV TAPAS: Faces Escobar Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CONCEPCION CARCAMO ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LV TAPAS INC. d/b/a LA
VARA, and EDER MONTERO and ALEXANDER RAIJ, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03074 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July
2013 until in or around March 2019 as a cook, food preparer,
kitchen worker and dish washer while performing related
miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual workers were required by the Defendants to
regularly work more than 40 hours each week. However, the
Defendants paid them a flat weekly rate of approximately $550.00
per week for all hours worked from in or around May 2016 until in
or around December 2016, and $650.00 per week for all hours worked
from in or around January 2017 until in or around March 31, 2019.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay them proper overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendants also failed to pay them spread of hours pay at the
legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff also asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment;
-- The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records;
-- The Defendants willfully failed to provide with a written
notice of her applicable regular rate; and
-- The Defendants willfully failed to provide with any wage
statements upon each payment of wages.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages,
statutory interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other equitable
remedies the Court deems appropriate.
LV Tapas Inc. operates a restaurant. Eder Montero and Alexander
Raij are co-owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
MAZDA MOTOR: Stem Seal Defect Linked to Oil Consumption, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi reports that a number of 2021 Mazda vehicle models
contain defective valve stem seals that can allow oil to leak into
the engine's combustion chamber, a proposed class action claims.
The 39-page lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the valve stem
seal issue, 2021 Mazda CX-30, CX-5, CX-9, Mazda3 and Mazda6
vehicles consume an excessive amount of engine oil between regular
oil changes. Per the suit, the problem poses a significant safety
threat to drivers, passengers and pedestrians as it can lead to
engine failure while the cars are being driven.
According to the case, defendant Mazda Motor of America has "long
known" of the valve stem seal issue yet concealed and "refused or
otherwise [has] been unable to repair" the alleged defect under
warranty. The complaint says that in an October 2021 dealer
bulletin, the automaker recognized that the vehicle models at issue
consumed high amounts of oil between oil changes and that "it is
very likely that valve stem seal damage is causing oil to leak into
the combustion chamber."
Instead of adequately remedying the valve stem seal problem, Mazda
merely directs dealerships to "top off" a vehicle's engine oil, the
lawsuit says. To date, the automaker has offered drivers neither a
suitable repair nor reimbursement for costs related to the valve
stem seal defect, the case states.
"Mazda has and will continue to benefit from its unlawful conduct -
by selling more vehicles, at a higher price, and avoiding warranty
obligations - while consumers are harmed at the point of sale, as
their vehicles continue to suffer from the unremedied Valve Stem
Seal Defect," the lawsuit contends.
Per the complaint, valve stem seals are supposed to prevent engine
oil from contaminating the air/fuel mixture in a vehicle's
combustion chamber and prevent intake and exhaust gases from
contaminating oil in the cylinder head and the rest of the engine.
Importantly, valve stem seals are supposed to last for a vehicle's
lifetime, according to the case.
The defect affecting the valve stem seals can cause not only
excessive engine oil consumption but can also damage the engine and
other components. From the complaint:
"For instance, the defective valve stem seals in the Class Vehicles
and the resulting engine oil burning in the vehicles' combustion
chambers creates carbon deposits on the valves and piston crown and
contaminates the spark plugs, causing the cylinder to lose power.
The Defect can also cause the engine valves to fail to seal, and in
turn a lack of compression and a poor running engine. In addition,
the defective valve stem seals can cause excess exhaust gases in
the crankcase, which result in damage to other vehicle systems."
The lawsuit looks to represent consumers who are current or former
owners or lessees of a 2021 Mazda CX-30, CX-5, CX-9, Mazda3 or
Mazda 6 vehicle.
The case was initially filed on April 19, 2022 in Orange County
Superior Court before being removed to California's Central
District Court on May 25. [GN]
NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Allowed Leave to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A.
v. National Spine and Pain Centers LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00430 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mac R. Mccoy entered an
order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file
reply in support of its motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff may file a reply in further support of the
Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Class Certification of no more than 15 pages no later than May 25,
2022.
National Spine & Pain Centers, LLC provides health care services.
The nature of suit states restrictions on use of telephone
equipment.[CC]
NUTRIBULLET LLC: Class Settlement Claim Form Deadline Set June 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutribullet LLC has agreed to a $10 million class action lawsuit
settlement to resolve claims some of its blenders are prone to
overheating.
The class is made up of anyone who purchased, for non-commercial
use and not for resale, any new or reconditioned 600- or 900-watt
Nutribullet blender in the United States or its territories between
June 1, 2017, and March 15, 2022.
Nutribullet makes a variety of small appliances and related
products, such as juicers, food processors, smoothie mixes,
supplements and more.
However, according to the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit,
Nutribullet should be letting consumers know not to operate certain
blender models continuously for more than one minute and not to
blend hot or warm ingredients.
Nutribullet has not admitted any wrongdoing or liability and argues
the blenders are safe, but the company has agreed to a settlement
to resolve the class action claims.
Class members who submit a claim with proof of purchase or their
blender's serial number may choose either a cash refund - $5 for a
qualifying 600-watt model or $7 for a qualifying 900-watt model -
or a discount code for $10 toward the purchase of a new 600-watt
blender or $15 off the purchase of a new 900-watt model.
Only one claim is allowed per household.
In addition to the monetary relief, Nutribullet will add notices to
the outside of the packaging of its 600- and 900-watt blender
models advising consumers not to operate the blenders continuously
for more than a minute or to blend hot or warm ingredients.
The disclosure will also instruct consumers to read all warnings in
the product's user guide before using the blender.
A final approval hearing in the Nutribullet overheating blenders
settlement is set for June 30, 2022.
The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is June 13,
2022.
The claim form deadline is also June 13, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The class is made up of anyone who purchased, for non-commercial
use and not for resale, any new or reconditioned 600- or 900-watt
Nutribullet blender in the United States or its territories between
June 1, 2017, and March 15, 2022.
Potential Award
A cash refund - $5 for a qualifying 600-watt model or $7 for a
qualifying 900-watt model - or a discount code for $10 toward the
purchase of a new 600-watt blender or $15 off the purchase of a new
900-watt model.
Proof of Purchase
Proof such as a receipt or credit card statement, or the blender's
serial number
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/13/2022
Case Name
Meister v. Nutribullet LLC, Case No. 22-LA-0024 in the Circuit
Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, Court of St. Clair, State of
Illinois
Final Hearing
06/30/2022
Settlement Website
MeisterSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
MailMeister v. Nutribullet
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
833-620-3607
Class Counsel
David C Nelson
NELSON & NELSON PC
Defense Counsel
Aaron S Dyer
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP [GN]
OKTA INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Okta Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
OKTA) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors who purchased Okta stock
between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The Complaint alleges that that Defendants made false statements
and/or concealed that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity
controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data
breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused
by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta
customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently
downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Okta should
contact the Firm prior to the July 19, 2022 lead plaintiff motion
deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
OLD SOUL'S: Lewis et al. Sue Over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE LEWIS, PHILLIP LEWIS, and CAMDEN LEWIS, for themselves
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OLD SOUL'S FARMS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00141 (S.D. Ohio, May 25, 2022)
bring this complaint as a class and collective action complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay.
Plaintiff Christine Lewis began her employment for the Defendant on
or about June 7, 2021 as a quality control technician and was
terminated on or about December 13, 2021 after she filed for
worker's compensation benefits following after she suffered from
workplace injury. Plaintiff Phillip Lewis was employed by the
Defendant as a Safety Maintenance Coordinator from July 19, 2021
until February 18, 2022. Plaintiff Camden Lewis was employed by the
Defendant as a Line Worker from approximately June 21, 2021 until
approximately April 7, 2022.
The Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees worked more than 40 hours per workweek, but
were not allowed to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break.
Accordingly, the Defendant permitted them to take no more than
20-minute breaks during their workday, but one or two 20-minute
breaks were deducted from their daily hours worked. As a result,
despite working more than 40 hours worked in a workweek, the
Defendant failed to compensate them for all such hours worked over
40 at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay because they failed to pay for all hours worked due to the
Defendant's 20-minute break deduction policy, the suit asserts.
Old Soul's Farms primarily processes and packages perishable foods.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery Rd., Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Tel: (513) 834-8254
Fax: (513) 834-8253
E-mail: angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al.,
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered
an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification as follows:
2. certifying a class of employees who worked at Defendants'
Fort Lauderdale, Florida location, located at 381 East
Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 from
January 29, 2016, to the location's closure.
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Shane Villarino, Laura Johnson,
Jeffrey Mondy, and Jerome Gunn as Class Representatives;
4. appointing the Plaintiffs, Dion J. Cassata, Esq., Cassata
Law, PLLC, and Andrew R. Frisch, Esq., Morgan & Morgan,
P.A., as Class Counsel.
5. directing the parties to submit a joint proposed Class
Notice as limited in this Order by June 2, 2022;
6. directing the Defendants to produce a complete list of all
employees within the class definition, with their last
known addresses, by June 16, 2022.
This is an action for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), as well as alleged violations of
the Florida Labor Pool Act (FLPA).
The Plaintiffs are general day laborers employed by Defendants,
Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc., Pacesetter Personnel Service of
Florida, Inc., Florida Staffing Service, Inc., Tampa Service
Company, Inc., Pacesetter, Pacesetter Personnel, Pacesetter
Personnel Service, Pacesetter Personnel Services, Pacesetter
Personnel Services, LLC, PPS and/or FW Services.
Pacesetter provides temporary labor to a variety of industries. On
days the workers choose to work, they visit or sign into the local
Pacesetter office. Pacesetter then assigns workers to available
positions and gives them a job slip to be completed by the
employer.
Several workers allege that the Commercial Boulevard Pacesetter
office lacked required seating, bathroom facilities, or water, but
other workers acknowledge those amenities were present.
While waiting for their job assignments and/or their
transportation, workers pass the time by resting, watching
television, looking at their phones, or walking to a nearby
convenience store for coffee or cigarettes.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t5lK1L at no extra charge.[CC]
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Response to Fifth Interrogatories Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al.,
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-60192-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting
the Parties' joint motion for approval of the
Parties' Rule 29(b) stipulation staying Defendants' Response to
Plaintiffs' Fifth Interrogatories and Plaintiffs' Fifth Requests
for Production.
The Defendants may stay their responses to Nos. 1 and 2 of
Plaintiffs' Fifth Interrogatories and Plaintiffs' Fifth Requests
for Production until after this Court has issued an order on
Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PNlVZq at no extra charge.[CC]
PRO MUSIC: Cordero Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO MUSIC GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:2-cv-04285-KPF (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
uses screen-reading software.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to him and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired
people. When the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on the Defendant's website pssl.com in May 2022, the
screen reader fails to select an item even when selected and fails
to read the checkout link, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated blind and
visually-impaired individuals, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary
and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory
damages, actual and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
Pro Music Group, LLC owns and operates its website pssl.com, which
sells/offers DJ equipment, lighting, pro audio, studio and other
sound equipment. [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
Tel: (212) 595-6200
Fax: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
RISE SERVICES: Seeks 30-Day Extension to Respond to Class Cert
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, on behalf
of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Rise Services Inc.
dba Rise Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Rise Services Inc., a
Utah corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-GMS (D. Ariz), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting it grant it a
30-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for
conditional Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Certification.
Rise provides foster care, disability and Early Intervention
services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NF1gou at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
6017 North 15 th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85014
E-mail: TDF@yprklaw.com
PNS@yprklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin S. Pierce, Esq.
PIERCE COLEMAN PLLC
7730 East Greenway Road, Suite 105
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone (602) 772-5506
Facsimile (877) 772-1025
E-mail: Justin@PierceColeman.com
SDII GLOBAL: Air Quality Sues Over Improper Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS, LLC; ENGINEEREDWAY LLC; UMC ENGINEERING
SERVICES, LLC; and GWR CONSULTANTS, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SDII GLOBAL
CORPORATION; ALLIGATOR CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.; and GEORGE
MILES, Defendants, Case No. 150376274 (Fla. Cir., May 26, 2022) is
an action arising out of the Defendants' deceptive and
anti-competitive business practices that have caused damages to the
Plaintiffs' businesses and their professionals.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a coordinated effort to (i) attack the means and methods
used by Plaintiffs when rendering engineering services with respect
to property damage insurance claims; (ii) fabricate statements
about the quality of work performed; and (iii) file false and
fictitious Administrative Complaints with the Florida Board of
Professional Engineers, the board that oversees and regulates the
conduct of professional engineers in the State of Florida.
To date, none of the Administrative Complaints filed against the
Plaintiffs have any merit, and one was dismissed thus far finding
the purported misconduct lacked any probable cause for a violation
of Florida law. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs have incurred and will
incur significant costs and expenses in defending these baseless
accusations, and all of the Plaintiffs have been harmed by the
Defendants' misconduct, says the suit.
SDII GLOBAL CORPORATION provides forensic engineering services. The
Company offers geotechnical and structural engineering services,
hurricane response, geophysical site characterization, litigation
support, and geological and water resource solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Alper, Esq.
Joshua L. Zipper, Esq.
SHAPIRO BLASI WASSERMAN & HERMANN PA
7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 477-7800
Facsimile: (561) 477-7722
Email: jalper@sbwh.law
jzipper@sbwh.law
crestivo@sbwh.law
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Opris Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIMONA OPRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. SINCERA
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, formerly known as and operating as ABINGTON
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, P.C., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-3072
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in
part Defendant Sincera's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim.
I. Introduction
Cybersecurity is a topic of utmost importance in a world reliant
upon technology. One particular use of technology is to store
information. Despite the benefits of computerized data storage and
the precautions taken to safeguard the data, maintaining sensitive
personal information on a computer server leaves this data exposed
to hackers and other bad actors.
The case involves a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs
against their healthcare provider, Defendant Sincera, after a
breach of their sensitive personal data. The breach occurred when a
hacker accessed the healthcare facility's computer server.
Before the Court is Defendant Sincera's Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II. Background
The named Plaintiffs in the case, Simona Opris, Adrian Adam, and
Britney Richardson, are former patients of Defendant Sincera.
Sincera is an entity that provides reproductive medicine to its
patients.
On May 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs received a written notification
from the Defendant that a data breach had occurred at the
healthcare center. The notification informed them that their
personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") may have been exposed to third parties during
the breach. This PII and PHI included, inter alia, patient names,
driver's license numbers, medical diagnosis and treatment
information, prescription information, treating and referring
physician information, and health insurance information.
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, on Aug. 10, 2020, the data
breach occurred when a hacker gained access to Sincera's network,
where all patient data was stored. Sincera did not contain the
breach until Sept. 13, 2020. Because of this lapse in time, "the
hacker had unlimited access to confidential patient data on
Sincera's networks (including the Plaintiffs' and the Class
Members' breached PII and PHI) for more than one month." Also,
sometime on Nov. 8, 2020, the patient information was posted on a
ransomware website, Maze, on the dark web. The Amended Complaint
alleges that more than 37,000 patients of the Defendant had their
PII and PHI taken as a result of the breach.
On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated the case by filing a
class action Complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The Complaint identifies the class as "individuals, patients of or
people that are customers of or have their records at Sincera whose
PII and/or PHI was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third
parties" during the data breach. On July 9, 2021, Defendant Sincera
removed the case to this Court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).
On Aug. 31, 2021, the PPlaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The
Amended Complaint alleges four claims against the Defendant: (1)
negligence (Count I); (2) breach of fiduciary duty and confidences
(Count II); (3) violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. Section
201-1, et seq. (Count III); and (4) for a declaratory judgment
under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, et
seq. (Count IV).
On Sept. 14, 2021, Defendant Sincera filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss. In the Motion, the Defendant argues that the Amended
Complaint in its entirety should be dismissed. Essentially, it
asserts that the Amended Complaint fails to allege that the
Plaintiffs "are the victims of identity theft, actual or
attempted," that they "have made any purchases in an attempt to
monitor their credit or identity," or that they took particular
actions "in response to the ransomware attack." Thus, the
Defendant seeks dismissal of Counts I, II, III, and IV.
On Oct. 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to
the Defendant's Motion. And on Oct. 26, 2021, the Defendant filed a
Reply. On Oct. 28, 2021, the Defendant filed a Memorandum of
Supplemental Authority, noting a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court
decision, Bailey v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 266 A.3d
654 (Pa. Super. 2021). On Dec. 21, 2021, the Court held a hearing
on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The matter is now fully
briefed and ripe for disposition.
III. Analysis
A. Count I: Negligence
Count I of the Amended Complaint asserts a claim for negligence
under Pennsylvania law, as well as negligence per se for failure to
comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 45(a), and the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act ("HIPAA") 42 U.S.C. Section 1320(d) et seq.
In the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant asserts that the elements
of a negligence claim under Pennsylvania law are not met.
Additionally, it argues that, under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff
may not assert negligence per se unless the statute authorizes a
private right of action, "or the aim of the action is to protect a
particular group of individuals." And, according to the Defendant,
neither is met in the case.
In response to these arguments, the Plaintiffs assert that they
have pled the elements of negligence under Pennsylvania law, and
there is no requirement that asserting an action for negligence per
se must be authorized by statute.
Judge Slomsky opines that (i) the Amended Complaint sufficiently
establishes a duty by Defendant under Pennsylvania law to protect
Plaintiffs' PII and PHI; (ii) at the motion to dismiss stage, the
allegations contain enough facts to establish a breach of duty;
(iii) at the motion to dismiss stage, the chain of events set forth
in the Amended Complaint is sufficient to establish proximate
causation; and (iv) because the Plaintiffs have alleged loss of
value to their PII and PHI, this assertion further supports that
they suffered damages as a result of Sincera's negligence.
In Count I, the Plaintiffs also allege negligence per se. The
Amended Complaint bases its claim of negligence per se on the
Defendant's failure to protect the Plaintiffs' personal information
by alleging that this failure violated several federal statutes and
a state statute. The Defendant asserts in its Motion that the
federal statutes underlying the negligence per se claim, Section 5
of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45(a), and the HIPAA, do not
provide a statutory basis for a negligence per se claim because
these statutes do not create federal private rights of action.
In response, the Plaintiffs argue that while Defendant is correct
that Section 5 of the FTC Act and HIPAA "do not create implied
federal rights of private action, it does not follow that
Pennsylvania common law cannot incorporate their standards in
defining the sort of conduct that may give rise to negligence
liability."
Judge Slomsky has already determined that the elements of
negligence under Pennsylvania law have been sufficiently pled. He
now determines whether the two federal statutes challenged here may
be used to establish a duty of care sufficient to support a claim
of negligence per se. He finds that even though the words
"negligence per se" are not used in Bailey, its holding is on point
and supports Defendant's position that HIPAA and its implementing
regulations cannot be relied upon to establish a duty of care for a
negligence per se claim in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Amended
Complaint's negligence per se claim based upon HIPAA is dismissed.
Judge Slomsky also finds that t this stage, the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the part of Count I that uses Section 5 of the FTC Act
as a standard of care for negligence per se will be denied. He,
however, considers this argument at the summary judgment stage.
As noted, because the Plaintiffs have stated facts to support a
common law negligence claim, Count I remains, except for the
negligence per se claim asserted under HIPAA, which is dismissed.
B. Count II: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
In Count II, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant's conduct
constituted a breach of its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs. To
establish breach of a fiduciary duty in Pennsylvania, the claimant
must show: "(1) that the defendant negligently or intentionally
failed to act in good faith and solely for the benefit of plaintiff
in all matters for which he or she was employed; (2) that the
plaintiff suffered injury; and (3) that the agent's failure to act
solely for the plaintiff's benefit was a real factor in bringing
about plaintiff's injuries."
Judge Slomsky opines that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
a confidential, patient-doctor relationship between themselves and
Defendant sufficient to satisfy the definition of a fiduciary
relationship under Pennsylvania law. The Complaint alleges not only
that Sincera was the fiduciary of the Plaintiffs' PII, but also was
given, in confidence, their PHI relating to their treatment at
Sincera and other health facilities. Also, the allegations state
that Sincera "negligently or intentionally failed to act in good
faith," that the Plaintiffs suffered injuries, and that Sincera
caused such injuries through its failure to safeguard information
and adequately respond to the breach. These facts sufficiently
allege injuries and causation. Therefore, Count II of the Amended
Complaint will survive the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss because it
sufficiently states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
C. Count III: Violation of the UTPCPL
In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73
P.S. Section 201-1, et seq. To establish liability under the
UTPCPL, a party must prove: "(1) a deceptive act that is likely to
deceive a consumer acting reasonably under similar circumstances;
(2) justifiable reliance; and (3) that the plaintiff's justifiable
reliance caused ascertainable loss."
The Defendant argues that Count III should be dismissed because
this requirement of the UTPCPL is not met. In support of this
assertion, it opines that voluntary actions, "such as time
allegedly spent monitoring credit," do not qualify as an actionable
"ascertainable loss." In their Response, the Plaintiffs assert
that, regarding the first and second elements, because Sincera
received payment for its services as a healthcare provider "with
the understanding that Sincera would maintain the privacy of their
information, which it then failed to do," this misrepresentation
constituted Sincera engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct.
Judge Slomsky says discovery in the case will reveal whether the
Plaintiffs secured and paid for identity theft protection and
credit monitoring and whether their PII and PHI lost value because
of the alleged data breach. Nevertheless, at this stage, the Court
must assume these facts as true and Judge Slomsky denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Amended Complaint
because the Plaintiffs have alleged an "ascertainable loss."
D. Count IV: Declaratory Judgment
Last, the Plaintiffs assert a claim to relief under the federal
Declaratory Judgment Act. The DJA provides that "in a case of
actual controversy within its jurisdiction any court of the United
States may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration, whether further relief
is or could be sought." The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that
"Sincera owes a legal duty to secure PII and PHI and to timely
notify patients or any individuals impacted of a data breach under
the common law, Section 5 of the FTC Act, HIPAA, various state
statutes, and the common law," as well as that "Sincera continues
to breach this legal duty by failing to employ reasonable measures
to secure consumers' PII and PHI."
Judge Slomsky opines that the sought declaration overlaps with the
rest of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Whether the Court should
issue such a declaration will depend on the outcome of the
Plaintiff's substantive claims in Counts I, II, and III. At the
motion to dismiss stage, these claims have not been fully
developed. Thus, dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim under the DJA
would be premature. If the Plaintiffs develop their claims in
Counts I, II, and III, the Court will then look to the factors
outlined by the Third Circuit to determine whether a declaratory
judgment is an appropriate remedy. For these reasons, Judge Slomsky
does not dismiss the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim under
the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Slomsky grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate Order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdfa28ew from Leagle.com.
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that its
subsidiary, Six Flags Magic Mountain, is facing a complaint filed
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California on
September 18, 2019, on behalf of a purported class of current and
former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain.
An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2019. The complaint
alleges violations of California law governing payment of wages,
wage statements, and seeks unpaid wages and statutory damages under
California law as well as under the Private Attorneys General Act,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: Settlement Deal Reached in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that in October
2021, the parties in a February 14, 2020 complaint filed against
Six Flags Magic Mountain, LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California, on behalf of a purported class of its current
and former employees have entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the lawsuit and the court granted preliminary approval on
April 5, 2022.
The complaint alleges one cause of action for failure to furnish
accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California labor
law, and seeks statutory damages under California law as well as
under the Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
SIX FLAGS MAGIC: To Settle Labor Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that in January
2022, the parties in an April 6, 2020 complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a
purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Magic
Mountain have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
lawsuit. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the court.
Six Flags Magic Mountain, is facing a complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, California, filed in April 6, 2020, on
behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six
Flags Magic Mountain.
The complaint alleges violations of California law governing
background checks, and seeks statutory damages under California law
as well as under the Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and waterparks.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG
CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00995-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the Direct Purchasers move the
Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for an
order certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Lamictal Tablets directly from GSK
at any time during the Class Period from February 17, 2008
until January 22, 2009, and Cigna Healthcare, Express Scripts
Pharmacy, Medco Health, Walmart, Omnicare, Immediate
Pharmaceuticals Inc, Optum Rx, and Prime Therapeutics LLC,
each of whom directly purchased generic Lamictal Tablets from
Teva during the Class Period from February 17, 2008 until
January 22, 2009 at prices that were not reduced in response
to GSK's Contracting Strategy."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.
In the alternative, if the Court does not certify the proposed
class defined above, the Direct Purchasers move for an order
certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Lamictal Tablets directly from GSK
at any time during the Class Period from February 17, 2008
until January 22, 2009."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.
Direct Purchasers also move for the Court to appoint the Named
Plaintiffs Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., King Drug Company of
Florence, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. as
representatives of the Class.
Direct Purchasers also move for the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g) to confirm Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher, LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z2OLPB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Matthew F. Gately, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West – Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Joseph Opper, Esq.
Noah Silverman, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
88 Pine Street, Floor 10
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roche, Esq.
Chris Letter, Esq.
Dan Chiorean, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
- and -
Susan C. Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
- and -
Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
One Penn Center, Suite 1500
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
Allan Bullwinkel, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Germond Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD S. GERMOND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPERO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; ANKIT
MAHADEVIA; and SATYAVRAT SHUKLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03125
(E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2022) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Spero
securities between October 28, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data submitted
in support of the Tebipenem HBr NDA were insufficient to obtain FDA
approval; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would
approve the Tebipenem HBr NDA in its current form; (iii) the
foregoing would necessitate a significant workforce reduction and
restructuring of Spero's operations; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times, says the suit.
Spero's stock price fell $3.24 per share, or 63.65%, to close at
$1.85 per share on May 3, 2022.
As a result of the Defendants' 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, the suit added.
SPERO THERAPEUTICS, INC. operates as a biopharmaceutical company.
The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing
novel treatments for MDR bacterial infections. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Feb. 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate to the following schedule for class certification
briefing:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
filed by February 17, 2023;
2. The Defendant's Opposition shall be filed by March 31,
2023;
3. The Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed by April 28, 2023;
and
4. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
shall be set for May 30, 2023.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z5vk8z at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kim Donovan, Esq.
GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP
2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 428-3900
Facsimile: (650) 428-3901
E-mail: kdonovan@gcalaw.com
THINX INC: Underwear Contains Harmful Chemicals, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Thinx underwear
contains harmful chemicals which are a safety hazard to the human
body and the environment, but it markets the underwear as safe to
wear, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Nicole Dickens filed the class action lawsuit against
Thinx Inc. May 25 in a New York federal court alleging violations
of state and federal consumer laws.
Dickens says she purchased two pairs of the Thinx Underwear from
Thinx's website in May 2016.
Because of the company's marketing of the underwear as a menstrual
product alternative, she says she believed that the underwear would
serve as a safe, healthy, environmentally-friendly and
chemical-free alternative to traditional menstrual products.
However, in November 2020, Dickens became aware of reports that
Thinx underwear contained harmful chemicals, and stopped using the
product. Her lawsuit alleges that the brand deceived women into
paying for a dangerous product at a price premium.
"Through its uniform, widespread, nationwide advertising campaign,
Defendant has led consumers to believe that Thinx Underwear is a
safe, healthy and sustainable choice for women, and that it is free
of harmful chemicals," she says.
"In reality, Thinx Underwear contains harmful chemicals, including
multiple polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and silver
nanoparticles, which are a safety hazard to the female body and the
environment."
Customer Seeks Damages for Herself and Others
Dickens says her own independent testing has confirmed the
existence of "harmful chemicals" in Thinx's products using industry
standard testing.
She says the presence of the chemicals contradicts Thinx's
unvarying representations that the product is nontoxic,
environmentally friendly, and otherwise safe for women and the
environment.
If customers knew the underwear contained harmful chemicals, such
as PFAS, they would not have purchased the underwear or they would
have paid less for it, Dickens says.
She is suing on behalf of anyone in Florida who bought Thinx
Underwear. Dickens is seeking certification of the class action
lawsuit, damages, fees, costs, interest and a jury trial.
Thinx was hit with a similar class action lawsuit in 2021, alleging
that despite marketing proclaiming that Thinx are nontoxic,
harmless, organic, and safe, the underwear contains several harmful
chemicals that pose a "safety hazard to the female body."
Have you bought Thinx Underwear? What do you think of the
allegations in this case? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Andrei Rado, Harper T. Segui,
Rachel Soffin, Erin Ruben and J. Hunter Bryson of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.
The Thinx Class Action Lawsuit is Nicole Dickens v. Thinx, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04286 in the U.S. District Court Southern District
of New York.[GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Extends Scheduling Order Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SQUIRES, JESSE
BADKE, AHMED KHALIL, MICHELLE NIDEVER, JOHN MURPHY, KEVIN NEUER,
NICHOLAS WILLIAMS and DONNA SUE SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP, TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC. and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-00138-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L Mazzant
entered an order granting the parties' agreed motion to extend
scheduling order Deadlines as follows:
-- Deadline to add parties: August 20, 2019
-- Answer to Amended Complaint: September 21, 2019
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file November 20, 2019
Amended Complaint:
-- Deadline for Defendants' final December 20, 2019
amended pleadings:
-- Date by which parties shall January 31, 2020
notify the Court of the name,
address, and telephone number of
the agreed-upon mediator,
or request that the Court select
a mediator, if they are unable
to agree on one:
-- Disclosure of expert testimony: September 29, 2022
-- Date by which Plaintiffs Must September 29, 2022
File Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Date by which Defendants Must November 10, 2022
File Response in Opposition
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Reply in Further Support of December 8, 2022
Motion for Class Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lSkzyP at no extra charge.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Feng Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Feng v. Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02493 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that
oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Tordjman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tordjman v. Toyota Motor
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04628 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge James R. Cho entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Court extends the deadline for completing fact
discovery and submitting class certification motions to
July 21, 2022.
-- The in-person conference set for May 23, 2022 is adjourned
to July 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11D South before
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
-- Parties shall notify the Court by July 25, 2022 if they
wish to convert the in-person conference to a telephonic
conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor is the operating subsidiary that oversees all
operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.[CC]
UHL VENTURES: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians' OT, Bonura Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TONY BONURA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UHL VENTURES LLC d/b/a SERVPRO OF
JAMESTOWN/OLEAN and WILLIAM UHL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00395
(W.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged
willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt water technician from approximately November 2020 to
October 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid and non-exempt technicians regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants maintained a
policy of automatically deducting two 15-minute breaks per shift
from the time recorded by its hourly-paid technicians. Moreover,
the Defendants failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in its
technicians' regular rate when computing statutory overtime
compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated technicians were not properly compensated for overtime at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action complaint
against the Defendants on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated technicians to recover the full amount of damages and
liquidated damages available by law, attorneys' fees and costs
incurred, pre- and post-judgment interests, and other relief as the
Court deem appropriate.
UHL Ventures LLC provides water restoration and cleaning services.
William Uhl is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Tel: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
VISA INC: B&R Seeks Distribution of Certified Class Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.,
d/b/a MILAM'S MARKET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. VISA, INC., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-02738-MKB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2)(B) approving the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the
certified class and proposal for distribution of the notice.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in Foster City, California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ahylIC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George C. Aguilar, Esq.
Michael J. Nicoud, esq.
Jacob W. Ogbozo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: gaguilar@robbinsllp.com
mnicoud@robbinsllp.com
jogbozo@robbinsllp.com
- and -
John W. Devine, Esq.
DEVINE GOODMAN & RASCO LLP
2800 Ponce De Leon Boulevard., Suite 1400
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 374-8200
Facsimile: (305) 374-8208
E-mail: jdevine@devinegoodman.com
- and -
Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 810-2430
Facsimile: (212) 810-2427
E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com
WALMART INC: Lebby Seeks Sept. 16 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LEBBY v. WALMART
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01365-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order that the July 15 class certification motion
deadline be moved to September 16.
This extension will provide the parties with sufficient time to
complete formal discovery if the June 28 mediation is unsuccessful,
the Plaintiff contends.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N2LGmI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adianel Burgos and Hector
Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Youth on the Move, Inc. and Janice Brown, Case No.
3:22-cv-30031-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their move for conditional certification of the
collective action, and for an order authorizing notice to issue to
a putative class consisting of the following group of individuals:
"All individuals who were employed by Youth on the Move, Inc.
as drivers or monitors within the three years preceding the
filing of the complaint in this matter, with the exception of
any such individuals who were class members in the matter of
Michalczyk v. Youth on the Move, Inc. et al, Hampden County
Superior Court Civil Action No. 1979cv00860, and who did not
work for the Defendants as a driver or monitor after April
10, 2020."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sY4YSc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has Liabilities from Issued Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., through its subsidiary,
Argonaut Insurance Company, is exposed to asbestos liability at the
primary level through claims filed against its direct insureds, as
well as through its position as a reinsurer of other primary
carriers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Argonaut has direct liability arising
primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s,
which pre-dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos
exposure. The majority of the direct policies were issued on behalf
of small contractors or construction companies. We believe that the
frequency and severity of asbestos claims for such insureds is
typically less than that experienced for large, industrial
manufacturing and distribution concerns.
"Argonaut also assumed risk as a reinsurer, primarily for the
period from 1970 to 1975, a portion of which was assumed from the
London market. Argonaut also reinsured risks on policies written by
domestic carriers. Such reinsurance typically provided coverage for
limits attaching at a relatively high level, which are payable only
after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted. Some of the claims
now being filed on policies reinsured by Argonaut are on behalf of
claimants who may have been exposed at some time to asbestos
incorporated into buildings they occupied, but have no apparent
medical problems resulting from such exposure. Additionally,
lawsuits are being brought against businesses that were not
directly involved in the manufacture or installation of materials
containing asbestos. We believe that a significant portion of
claims generated out of this population of claimants may result in
incurred losses generally lower than the asbestos claims filed over
the past decade and could be below the attachment level of
Argonaut."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3t0Vwh1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 158 Individual PI Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. has been named a defendant in numerous personal
injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc
products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2022, there were 158
individual cases pending against the Company. During the three
months ended March 31, 2022, 13 new cases were filed and 6 cases
were dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved
"The value of the settlements was not material, either individually
or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2022. Additional similar cases arising
out of the use of the Company’s talc products are reasonably
anticipated.
"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and
will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of
liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide
trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of
cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very
large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the
outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we
are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of
individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal
proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of
exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into
account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to
date. Any accruals currently recorded on the Company's balance
sheet with respect to these cases are not material. However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3z8BO6X
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
March 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 45 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2022. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of both March 31, 2022 and
December 31, 2021, BNS Sub has accrued $1,465 relating to the open
and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount
of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the
insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the
likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts
funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of
future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or
judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of
existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly
increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these
claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3M7ilq2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Defends Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and many others, are defendants in suits
that have been brought in New York State and federal courts,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, which are
many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or
for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims. At March 31, 2022, Con Edison and CECONY have
accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years. These estimates were based upon a
combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor
assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on
appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining
liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied
historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that
there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess
of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to
estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain
current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers'
compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to
asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Njsdy4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Several Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits
that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Curtiss-Wright states, "To date, the Corporation has not been found
liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
asbestos-related case. The Corporation believes its minimal use of
asbestos in its past operations as well as its acquired businesses'
operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in
its historical products makes it unlikely that it will face
material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually
or in the aggregate. The Corporation maintains insurance coverage
and indemnification agreements for these potential liabilities and
believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated
asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3t7Y2lu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $495MM Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$495 million at March 31, 2022, and $501 million at December 31,
2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These reserves are based upon Duke Energy
Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims
through 2041 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of
the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management
does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and
medical costs that might be incurred after 2041 related to such
potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur
asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GxBv7g
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $135.8MM Reserves at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at March 31,
2022, had net asbestos loss reserves of $135.8 million, or 100.2%,
of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate
of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PSQIEd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Defends Numerous PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries
purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain
products manufactured by us or present in certain of our
facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date,
we have disposed of approximately 155,900 claims by defending,
obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The
sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to
date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $565 million through March 31, 2022 and $560 million
through December 31, 2021.
"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate
our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded
gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims,
inclusive of defense costs, totaling $131 million at both March 31,
2022 and December 31, 2021. In determining the estimate of our
asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year
period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis
based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the
future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and
that increase could be significant.
"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.
"We recorded an insurance receivable related to asbestos claims of
$77 million at both March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. We expect
that approximately 60% of asbestos claim related losses would be
recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by
the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million was included
in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both March 31,
2022 and December 31, 2021. The recorded receivable consists of an
amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with
certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount
we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess
insurance carriers.
"We believe that, at December 31, 2021, we had approximately $540
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs. In addition, we had
coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3t9AeOb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII), and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including
those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer,
mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In
some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also
named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of
its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during
the three months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, were immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3x7jda0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $135.1MM Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. has a total litigation reserve of $135.1
million and $136.9 million as of March 31, 2022 and December 31,
2021, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising
from its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos related defense costs are excluded
from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as
services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future
developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operation or liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $143.9 million and $145.1 million as of March 31,
2022 and December 31, 2021, which was included in "Other assets" in
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by
the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance
recoveries are based on currently available information and
assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an
evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual
results vary significantly from the assumptions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zfwLkS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights or have advised the Company that they need to
investigate further. In addition, some of the primary and excess
insurers have gone out of business, and thus coverage is not
available. There are also primary policies for years earlier than
1970 that were purchased by the Company, and coverage under those
policies will be investigated. Because settlement payments are
applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to
asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available
for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary
and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies,
the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and
settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay;
accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will
increase in the future. Further, most of the policies covering
later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for
any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide
insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does
not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary
insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operations. Management believes that the number of insurance
carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant
number of policy years and policy limits under which these
insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate
disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's
consolidated financial position or results of operations. As of
March 31, 2022, we recorded $120 and $540 within other accrued
liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively, within
our condensed consolidated balance sheet for estimated future
claims. An insurance receivable of $120 and $540 was recorded
within other current assets and other assets, net, respectively,
within our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31,
2022 for estimated insurance recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lUFiC2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Subsidiary Receives 721 New Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC), has received approximately 721 and 678
new asbestos-related claims, respectively, for the three months
ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing
products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
"MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;
and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain
trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC,
while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be
no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3m0irF5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation disclosed that an inactive subsidiary
that was acquired in 1978, sold certain products containing
asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the
defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "During the three months ended March 31, 2022,
there have been no significant changes to the facts or
circumstances of this previously disclosed matter, aside from
on-going claims and routine payments associated with this
litigation. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next50
years for these claims is approximately $0.3 million (excluding
costs of defense)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3t6XgVU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Industries is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in
state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot
presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending Rexnord
Industries in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date.
"The Company is, from time to time, party to litigation and other
legal or regulatory proceedings that arise in the normal course of
its business operations and the outcomes of which are subject to
significant uncertainty, including product warranty and liability
claims, contract disputes and environmental, asbestos, intellectual
property, employment and other litigation matters. The Company's
products are used in a variety of industrial, commercial and
residential applications that subject the Company to claims that
the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or
other damage. Many of these matters will only be resolved when one
or more future events occur or fail to occur. Management conducts
regular reviews, including updates from legal counsel, to assess
the need for accounting recognition or disclosure of these
contingencies, and such assessment inherently involves an exercise
in judgment. The Company accrues for exposures in amounts that it
believes are adequate, and the Company does not believe that the
outcome of any such lawsuit individually or collectively will have
a material effect on the Company's financial position, its results
of operations or its cash flows."
"A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3M7WxKG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of EFH were defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of April 29,
2022, no lawsuits are pending. Additionally, in connection with the
EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim
were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos
under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such
lawsuits in the future. None of these claims or lawsuits were
discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding. The costs to defend or
resolve these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be
imposed or incurred could have a material adverse effect on
Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash flows
and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3m5aheR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Reports 500 Cases in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has reported a current docket of active and inactive
cases of approximately 500 cases in the United States and less than
50 in Europe, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Tenneco states, "For many years, the Company has been and continues
to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.
"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.
"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims. The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business. In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company. To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3azJvZB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Has $75.5MM Liabilities at April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vontier Corporation has recorded gross liabilities associated with
known and future expected asbestos claims of $75.5 million and
$79.0 million as of April 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our reserves consist of specific reserves for
individual claims and additional amounts for anticipated
developments of these claims as well as for incurred but not yet
reported claims. The specific reserves for individual known claims
are quantified with the assistance of legal counsel and outside
risk insurance professionals where appropriate. In addition,
outside risk insurance professionals may assist in the
determination of reserves for incurred but not yet reported claims
through evaluation of our specific loss history, actual claims
reported, and industry trends among statistical and other factors.
Reserve estimates are adjusted as additional information regarding
a claim becomes known. While we actively pursue financial
recoveries from insurance providers, the Company does not recognize
any recoveries until realized or until such time as a sustained
pattern of collections is established related to historical matters
of a similar nature and magnitude. If the risk insurance reserves
the Company has established are inadequate, we would be required to
incur an expense equal to the amount of the loss incurred in excess
of the reserves, which would adversely affect our net earnings."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/38WkE1z
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Defends 1,850 Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company, as of March 31, 2022, has been named a defendant
in approximately 1,850 lawsuits in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related
personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them
vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it
is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these
cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos
litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any
given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings
or matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. At March 31, 2022,
we had $14.4 million reserved for these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GvCfK2
*********
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 ***