/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220614.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 112 Headlines 5 F DIGITAL: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania 9W HALO: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert Bid Extended in Smith ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Loses Bid for Class Certification ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 25 Deadline ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Barnes AMAZON.COM INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline AMAZON.COM: Seeks June 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response AMERICAN HERITAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMITY HARBOR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen's Findings of Facts Construed as Notice ASA BUILDING: Marty Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ASCENSION HEALTH: Workers Sue Over Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate AT&T INC: Scott ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ATLAS SENIOR: Green Loses Conditional Class Certification Bid BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Protein Content, Quality BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid To Exclude Lange's Report Terminated BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Kavon Suit BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective BOSWORTH CO: Dickson Files 2nd Supplement to Collective Action Bid CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Racism, Discrimination CAREDX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 22 Deadline CARVANA LLC: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Delivery Fee for Used Cars CENTENE CORPORATION: Jones Seeks Payment of Earned Commissions CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered in Fox CHOP'T CREATIVE SALAD: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Files Suit in W.D. New York COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended CREDIT ONE: S.D. New York Grants Anderson's Bid for Sanctions CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Select CBD Wellness Drops DANCEFIT INTERACTIVE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DENVER, CO: Exclusion of Plaintiffs From Epps' Arrest Class Denied DIA STYLING CO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Connecticut Court Certifies Breach Class Action EVOLENT HEALTH: Wants to Present Live Testimony at Hearing FAIRLIFE LLC: Milk Cow Mistreatment Class Action Settled for $21MM FARRIN PC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Garey, Hatch Suits FCA US: Nuwer Seeks July 28 Extension to File Class Cert Reply FIRSTENERGY CORP: LACERA Seeks to Certify Class FIVE BELOW INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FLOWERS FOODS: District of Maine Enters Final Judgment in Noll Suit FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York FUBU THE COLLECTION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FUTURE FINS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GERON CORP: Delaware Court Stays Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit GOOGLE LLC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Scheduled Sept. 28 GREENSKY MGMT: Order Partly Granting Wright's Bids to Compel Upheld GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Plavin Suit HABITUAL INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAIDER FAMILY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HALMEN LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Student's Suit HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Amended Phase I Case Mngt, Sched Order Entered HENKEL CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Goldstein Suit HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Forsyth Suit in California Court HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Jarrell Suit Over Concealed Seat Belt Defect INJURED WORKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Email Account Breach INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 24 Deadline IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 1 Deadline IRONNET INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 21 Deadline ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Class Suit ISS FACILITY: Mendoza Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California JOHN C. HEATH: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California KALAHARI SNACKS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LA MARIA PIZZERIA: Martinez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York LEGAL SEA: Labby Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers & Bartenders LLR INC: Ponkey Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Arbitration Order LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 26 Deadline MAZIE SLATER: Martino Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit META PLATFORMS: Illinois Residents Set to Receive Settlement Checks METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Greene Sues Over Gang Foremen's Unpaid Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Cir. Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit Discussed MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Denial of Goyette's Bid to Amend Schedules Upheld MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid as Moot MONSANTO CO: Roundup Certification Hearing Set for March 2023 MORPHE LLC: Brooks Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice MTA NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Prunella Suit Claims MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Case Management Deadlines in Davis Reset MYLAN NV: Settlement Hearing in Price Fixing Suit Set for July 6 NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Seeks Leave to File Rejoinder NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Basch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NETFLIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline NETFLIX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline NETFLIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline NEW INDY: Seeks Dismissal of Foul Odor Class Action Lawsuit NEW YORK: Court Interpreters Sue Over Discriminatory Pay Practices NEW YORK: Shomo Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. NYSDOCCS NIGHTFOOD INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NIKOLA CORP: Stockholder Derivative Suit Put on Hold ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kendall OKTA INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline PARKASH 1630: Seeks Extension to Respond to Diaz Class Cert. Bid PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline PEGASYSTEMS INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline PEGASYSTEMS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE: Guerra Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in California PNC BANK: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by July 11 PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California PVH RETAIL: Gamboa Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California QUEENSLAND: 2011 Brisbane Flood Victims Start Receiving Settlement RHODE ISLAND: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Munir Suit Denied RISKIFIED LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 1 Deadline ROCKET MORTGAGE: Snyder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ROOSEVELT FIELD: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Attys. Fees in Antitrust Suit Partly Affirmed SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in Illinois Court SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws SHELTA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Technicians SOCLEAN INC: Odom Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in Saxon Suit SPLUNK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court STARKIST CO: To Appeal 9th Cir. Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit STERICYCLE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment vs. Daniel SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson TALKSPACE INC: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Combined Securities Suit TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Stallworth FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court THERMON GROUP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Guardrail Class Action for $56-MM UNITED STATES: Murbach Files Suit for Workplace Discrimination UPSTART INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline VAXART INC: Court Dismisses Counts II-III in Stockholder Suit VENTURE TRANSPORT: Harris Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VIVID SEATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Hidden Fees" W.B. MASON: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Jablonski Suit Says WAAWAATESI LLC: Johnson Small Loans Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hostetler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennesse WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action WARDEN CARVER: Workman Class Certification Bid Nixed WARTBURG COLLEGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Warner Suit WASHINGTON DC: Jefferson Files Suit in D. Columbia WASHINGTON: Wise Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Vaccination Mandate WELCH FOODS: Seeks to Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Clevenger WELLS FARGO: District of New Jersey Dismisses Hart Federal Suit WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Response to Class Cert Bid WILD WEST: Filing of Jeter Class Status Bid Extended to July 11 WILLIAM OSLER: Cert. Ruling in Breach of Privacy Suit Discussed WORKFORCE 7 INC: Discovery Plan, Sched Order Modified in Ballast YMI JEANSWEAR: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ZEETO LLC: Williams Granted Extension to File Class Status Bid ZEETO LLC: Williams Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert Bid ********* 5 F DIGITAL: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 F Digital Inc. The case is styled as Andrew R. Perrong, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 5 F Digital Inc. doing business as: Vacant Land Experts, Case No. 2:22-cv-02160-CFK (E.D. Pa., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 5 F Digital Inc. doing business as Vacant Land Experts -- https://vacantlandexperts.com/ -- is a web-based marketing company for real estate professionals and private landowners from around the world..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com 9W HALO: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert Bid Extended in Smith --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR & CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline -- Plaintiff's Motion for June 16, 2022 Nov. 17, 2022 Class Certification: -- Defendant's Opposition Aug. 18, 2022 Jan. 19, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification: -- Plaintiff's Reply in Sept. 1, 2022 Feb. 2, 2023 Support of Motion for Class Certification: 9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household users. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8eCaB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com nolan@setarehlaw.com The Attorneys for Defendant 9W Halo Western OPCO L.P., are: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com calvarez@fisherphillips.com ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-23749-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Seitz entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court is not persuaded that a class action is the superior vehicle for putative class members. It is certainly not the only vehicle available to MAOs and downstream entities who wish to recoup on small claims. They could contract with Plaintiff, which has demonstrated its willingness to bring such claims as an assignee on behalf of a variety of Medicare Advantage Organization (MAOs) and other entities. The Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act ensures that Medicare funds do not cover costs that should be paid by private insurers. This situation arises where a person is covered by both Medicare and private insurance. As relevant here, for instance, a MAO plan beneficiary might be injured on commercial property where an insurer ultimately accepts responsibility for the medical expenses. In such cases, the MAO plan or one of its contracted providers (often termed downstream or first-tier entities) might have to pay first to cover immediate medical needs (a "conditional payment" under the Act). ACE American Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xktcay at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 25 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC ("AllianzGI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APBIX) (NASDAQ: APBPX) (NASDAQ: APBRX) (NASDAQ: APKIX) (NASDAQ: APKPX) (NASDAQ: APKRX) (NASDAQ: AZIAX) (NASDAQ: AZICX) (NASDAQ: AZIIX) (NASDAQ: AZIPX) (NASDAQ: AZIRX) (NASDAQ: AZUAX) (NASDAQ: AZUCX) (NASDAQ: AZUIX) (NASDAQ: AZUPX) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, sold, or liquidated mutual funds shares managed by AllianzGI's Structured Products Group from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/agi. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that AllianzGI committed securities fraud from 2015 through 2020 through a scheme to defraud prospective and current Mutual Fund investors by making false and misleading statements that substantially understated the risks being taken by the Mutual Funds. Instead of managing the Mutual Funds as represented, the Complaint alleges that AllianzGI prioritized returns over risk management in ways that were fundamentally inconsistent with AllianzGI's representations concerning the Mutual Funds Principal Investment Strategies. AllianzGI and its managers engaged in this conduct, the Complaint alleges, to increase the compensation paid to AllianzGI as investment manager and to its employees as portfolio managers of the Mutual Funds. The Complaint also alleges that AllianzGI acted negligently and breached its fiduciary duties to investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/agi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in AllianzGI you have until July 25, 2022, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Barnes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (AES), LLC ,Case No. 1:21-cv-21121-BB (S.D. Fla.), AES moves the Court for leave to file a short sur-reply to plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. AES makes this request to address two erroneous factual claims raised for the first time in plaintiff's Reply, which are contradicted by the discovery record before the Court. Because plaintiff's erroneous claims were made for the first time in plaintiff's Reply, AES had no opportunity to address them in its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff's complaint, filed in March 2021, alleged a proposed class period "within four years prior to the filing of this action." The parties engaged in extensive discovery based on that proposed class period. This discovery included depositions of AES employees and AES's January 12, 2022 Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. When plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on March 14, 2022, she for the first time alleged an entirely new proposed class period of “December 2020 to July 2021. Given plaintiff's new proposed class period, AES immediately searched for and, on April 6, 2022, supplemented its document production with 17 additional messages for the newly defined class period. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tqwtE6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq. R. Allan Pixton, Esq. Kelsey Bleiweiss, Esq. Nadia Abramson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com allan.pixton@kirkland.com kelsey.bleiweiss@kirkland.com nadia.abramson@kirkland.com - and - Buffey E. Klein, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 999-6100 Facsimile: (214) 999-6170 E-mail: buffey.klein@huschblackwell.com - and - Scott J. Helfand, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 655-1500 Facsimile: (312) 655-1501 E-mail: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com AMAZON.COM INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Amazon.com, Inc.: Shareholders who purchased shares of AMZN during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27908&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: February 1, 2019 to April 5, 2022 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its private-label business practices, including giving Amazon products preference over those of its competitors and using third-party sellers' non-public data to compete with them; (ii) the foregoing exposed Amazon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iii) Amazon's revenues derived from its private-label business were in part the product of impermissible conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the defendants' public statements throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading. DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27908&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of AMZN during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 5, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] AMAZON.COM: Seeks June 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Action to and including June 16, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his Certification Motion on April 14, 2022. On May 2, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Brief Motion to Certify, which the Court granted on May 3. This set Defendant's response deadline at June 2 and Plaintiff's reply deadline at June 30. The Defendant also filed a Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify, requesting the Court stay briefing on the Certification Motion until after ruling on Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss. On May 31, 2022, the Court issued its Order denying the motion to stay, which set Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Certification Motion for June 9, 2022. Amazon's in-house employment counsel who is handling this matter is out of the country on vacation, without access to email, from June 6, 2022 through June 13, 2022. Therefore, to provide in-house counsel sufficient time to review Defendant’s response to the Certification Motion upon his return from vacation, Amazon requests a brief additional one-week extension of time, to June 16, 2022, in which to respond to the Certification Motion. Amazon Services offers many of the Web service platforms that are Amazon offers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xh48l1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. Sarah K. Watt, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com swatt@littler.com AMERICAN HERITAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Heritage Textiles, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Heritage Textiles, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04564-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Heritage Textiles -- https://americanheritagetextiles.com/ -- is an American home goods, textile and accessories company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com AMITY HARBOR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amity Harbor Marine, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Amity Harbor Marine, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04640 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Amity Harbor Marine, Inc. -- https://www.amityharbormarine.com/ -- is a boat dealer in Copiague, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Files Suit in S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antero Resources Corporation. The case is styled as Treva Kirkbride, as Trustee of the R and K Trust, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons v. Antero Resources Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02251-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Antero Resources Corporation -- http://www.anteroresources.com/-- is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford N. Sickler, Esq. SICKLER LAW OFFICE, LLC 508 North Street Caldwell, OH 43724 Phone: (740) 732-1495 Fax: (740) 732-4139 Email: cliff@sicklerlawoffice.com - and - George A Barton, Esq. Stacy A Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6250 Email: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen's Findings of Facts Construed as Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lysengen v. Argent Trust Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01177 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order directing the Clerk's office to construe Plaintiff's filing as a Notice. The Plaintiff filed her Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Related to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as a Motion. The Plaintiff had already filed a fully briefed motion on this issue and the document is not styled as a motion. It appears this was inadvertently filed as a Motion, the Court says. The Defendant Argent filed a Motion to Strike, claiming Plaintiff inappropriately introduces new argument, factual contentions, and exhibits. The Court reviewed Plaintiff's findings of facts and Defendants response to those findings of facts and determined that while there were some new arguments, they did not change the outcome of the motion. Moreover, Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs Motions to Strike at the pre-trial phase of litigation. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving Recovery of Benefits to Employee. Argent Trust Co NA operates as an investment management firm. [CC] ASA BUILDING: Marty Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASA Building Maintenance Inc., et al. The case is styled as Luis Marty, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. ASA Building Maintenance Inc., Aref Ajram also known as: Steve Ajram, Maher Safa also known as: Michael Safa, Case No. 1:22-cv-04595 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Asa Building Maintenance -- https://www.asabm.com/ -- is a construction company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Fax: (646) 786-3170 Email: joshua@levinepstein.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Workers Sue Over Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate -------------------------------------------------------------- Mel Ford, writing for Owensboro Media, reports that about 60 people who work at Ascension are driving a class action lawsuit over the hospital's coronavirus vaccine mandate. The lawsuit says people were forced to choose between their job and their faith. The 60 all asked for religious exemptions to Ascension's vaccine mandate. The lawsuit says federal law prohibits companies from forcing people to choose between their jobs and their faith. Ascension isn't commenting on the lawsuit. [GN] AT&T INC: Scott ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Scott, Patricia Gilchrist, Karen Fisher, Helen Maldonado-Valtierra, John Griffin, Kenneth Rhodes, Judy Dougherty, John Kelly, Richard Walshon, and Dan Koval, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. and the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, Case No. 3:20-cv-07094-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: -- Retired Class "All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who are receiving a Joint and Survivor Annuity that is less than the value of their Single Life Annuity when converted to a Joint and Survivor Annuity using the interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26 U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability period and November lookback month, excluding those participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program, the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV Program; and -- Pre-Retirement Class "All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who have not commenced receiving benefits, excluding those participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program, the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV Program." 2. appointing them as class representatives; and 3. appointing Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Stris & Maher LLP, and Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP appointed as class counsel for the proposed classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). This case arises from the systematic underpayment of pension benefits to married participants in the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan ("Plan"). In summary, the Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Inc. (the plan sponsor) and AT&T Services, Inc. (the plan administrator) violate ERISA by paying joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits to married participants that are worth less than single life annuities ("SLAs"). The AT&T Pension Benefit Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" subject to the The Parties and the Plan requirements of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding company that is Delaware-registered but headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aG486a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq. Kai Ritcher, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 - and - Peter K. Stris, Esq. Rachana A. Pathak, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. John Stokes, Esq. Colleen R. Smith, Esq. 10 STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 - and - Todd Jackson, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 ATLAS SENIOR: Green Loses Conditional Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNITA GREEN, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ATLAS SENIOR LIVING, LLC, formerly known as Shepherd Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William T. Moore entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action and issuance of court-approved notice. Atlas's request for oral argument is also denied. Additionally, Chiquita Brown, Marsha Grant, Kiara Hartwell, Brittany Mitchell, Tameka Sibert, and Tawanya Richards are dismissed without prejudice from this action. Only Representative Plaintiff Bernita Green's individual claims remain pending. The Court reminds the parties that, in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's November 17, 2021, order, the parties must submit a new proposed scheduling order within 15 days of the date of this Order. On August 20, 2021, Representative Plaintiff Bernita Green, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, instituted this action seeking unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). According to the complaint. Green worked for Atlas as an hourly-paid medical technician at the Legacy at Savannah Quarters senior living facility. Green alleges that Atlas had a policy of automatically deducting either a 30-minute or one-hour meal period from its employees' time records, the length of the deduction being determined by the number of hours the employee worked during each shift. Atlas allegedly made these deductions despite knowing that Green and other similarly situated employees were frequently required to work through their meal breaks. On November 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and create an opt-in class comprised of all hourly employees who worked for Atlas at Legacy from August 20, 2018, to the present. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court authorize the issuance of notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Atlas at Legacy from August 20, 2018, to the present. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3muWxKx at no extra charge.[CC] BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Protein Content, Quality ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that consumers might be getting shortchanged on the protein found in certain items sold by Beyond Meat, a new lawsuit alleges. According to the proposed class action, a number of claims made by the company concerning both protein and nutritional benefits are "false and misleading." Specifically, the 46-page complaint out of Illinois alleges that the plant-based meat substitute company "miscalculates and overstates" its products' protein content and protein quality. The suit also alleges Beyond Meat misleads consumers into believing that its products provide equivalent nutritional benefits to those afforded by traditional meat-based foods. According to the suit, Beyond Meat has engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by "intentionally misrepresenting" the nature and quality of its products and failing to follow federal regulations regarding the appropriate testing methods for determining protein content. The case claims that industry-standard testing done by the six plaintiffs revealed that many Beyond Meat items contained less protein than indicated on their respective product labels. "As manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and/or retailers, Defendant tested, or should have tested, the Products prior to sale," the lawsuit reads. "As such, Defendant knows or should have known that the claims are false and misleading on the Products." Proper protein testing refutes Beyond Meat's label claims, lawsuit says The lawsuit states that the nitrogen content method is typically used to calculate a given food's protein content. Federal law, however, requires the disclosure of not only protein content but protein quality, the case states. Protein quality is established via a more rigorous testing methodology called the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score (PDCAAS), which provides the "corrected" amount of protein per serving and takes into account factors such as a human's ability to digest the protein. The lawsuit stresses that because Beyond Meat makes a "protein claim" on its products' front label, the company is required by law to use the PDCAAS calculation rather than some other "non-sophisticated method." "So for a product like [Beyond Meat's products], the protein content may be calculated using the nitrogen method, but it must be stated as a percentage of the Daily Reference Value using the corrected amount of protein," the case relays, adding that federal regulations acknowledge that the nitrogen method is "not the most accurate way to describe protein content." According to the filing, independent testing has revealed that the quantity of protein in all but four of the products listed in the following section is "less than what [the] Defendant represented." Even worse, the suit says, the daily value percentage of protein in each of the items is "a small fraction" of what Beyond Meat claims. Plaintiffs' counsel commissioned testing of Defendant's Products, which show that the Products do not contain the amount of stated protein amount and/or protein DV%. For example, Defendant's Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground 16oz Patties, which is labeled as '20G Per Serving' and '40% DV' for protein, actually contains 19G Per Serving by nitrogen testing, and 7% DV for protein. This represents an underfill of 5% for protein content and an underfill of 33% for %DV for protein." Consumers would not have bought the Beyond Meat products, or would have paid less for them, had they been aware of the "misleading labeling," the suit contends, alleging Beyond Meat "intended" for buyers to be "deceived or misled." What Beyond Meat products does the suit say are falsely advertised? The lawsuit alleges Beyond Meat has misrepresented the protein quality and/or content, as well as the overall nutritional benefit, of the following products: Beyond Meat Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Links Hot Italian 14 oz.; Beyond Meat Beyond Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Sausage Links Brat Original 14 oz.; Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based 16 oz. Patties; Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground Beef; Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Classic 7.4 oz.; Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Spicy 7.4 oz.; Beyond Meat Beyond Chicken Plant-Based Breaded Tenders Classic 8 oz.; Beyond Meat Beyond Meatballs Italian Style Plant-Based Meatballs 12 ct Classic 10 oz.; and Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Links Classic 8.3 oz. Who's covered by the Beyond Meat class action? The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States who, during the fullest period allowed by law, bought any of the Beyond Meat products listed on this page for personal use and not for resale. I've bought some Beyond Meat products. What's next? After a class action suit is filed, there's usually nothing you need to do to join or be included. For consumers, it's only if and when a class action settles that action might be needed, typically by filing a claim online or by mail. If the Beyond Meat class action settles sometime in the future and you're "covered," you would most likely receive a notice by mail and/or email. This notice will contain information on how to file a claim, your legal rights, any proof you might need to submit, and more. Most class action suits take some time to work through the legal process, usually on their way to a settlement, dismissal or arbitration. For now, Beyond Meat buyers, and anyone else interested in class action lawsuit and settlement news, should sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid To Exclude Lange's Report Terminated -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN et al v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that the plaintiffs' separate motion to exclude the report of Robert C. Lange is administratively terminated without prejudice, and with leave to plaintiffs to re-file the Motion To Exclude at the appropriate juncture after resolution of the Motion For Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles.[CC] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Kavon Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAM KAVON; ERIN CAMDEN; DAVID VENNER; CRAIG GELLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 20-15475 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part BMW's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. I. Background The named Plaintiffs in the putative class action, Adam Kavon, Erin Camden, David Venner, and Craig Geller, purchased or leased plug-in hybrid electric BMW vehicles that were recalled on Sept. 30, 2020, based on a safety issue with the vehicles' batteries. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the "MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. 50 Section 2301 et seq., along with state law causes of action for fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The action is about allegedly defective batteries installed as original equipment in certain BMW hybrid models. From Aug. 20, 2020 through Sept. 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs purchased or leased new 2021 BMW X5 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ("PHEV") in Minnesota, Texas, California, and Nevada, respectively. Those vehicles came with an express warranty, along with implied warranties arising under state law. On Sept. 30, 2020, BMW notified the Plaintiffs, via a recall bulletin, that their vehicles and several other models (the "Class Vehicles"), potentially had the following defect: "Debris may have entered one or more of the hybrid battery cells during their production" (the "Recall"). The Recall warned owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles that the battery defect created a risk of "a short circuit, increasing the risk of fire or injury." At the time the Recall was issued there was no available repair or fix for the battery, so BMW instructed owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles not to (1) charge their vehicles; (2) drive the vehicles in manual or sport mode; or (3) use the shift paddles. This amounted to an instruction that owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles not use the electric functions of their PHEVs. The 2AC alleges that the Plaintiffs brought their vehicles to the "seller and/or authorized service dealers of BMW" to repair the defect, but that BMW "failed to and were unable to remedy the underlying problem" of the battery. Plaintiff Kavon filed the initial complaint on Nov. 2, 2020. On Jan. 25, 2021, Kavon, Camden, and Pamela Hughes filed the Amended Complaint. The currently operative 2AC was filed on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs seeks to represent (1) a class of all those who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles nationwide and (2) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5), subclasses of purchasers or lessees in California, Nevada, Texas, and Minnesota. The 2AC asserts the following claims: a. Breach of express and implied warranty under the MMWA (Counts I and II), 15 U.S.C. 50 Section 2301 et seq., on behalf of the nationwide class. b. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count VI) on behalf of the nationwide class, and the California, Nevada, Texas, and Minnesota subclasses. c. Breach of implied and express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) (Counts III and IV), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, et seq., on behalf of the California subclass. d. Fraud claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Count V), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq., and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Count VIII), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq., on behalf of the California Subclass. e. Fraud claims under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA) (Count VII), Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 598.0903 et seq., on behalf of the Nevada subclass. f. Breach of express warranty under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 2.313 (Count IX), and implied warranty of merchantability under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 2.314 (Count X), on behalf of the Texas subclass. g. Fraud claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA) (Count XI), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 17.41 et seq., on behalf of the Texas subclass. h. Fraud claims under the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (MPCFA) (Count XII), Minn. Stat. Section 325F.68 et seq., on behalf of the Minnesota subclass. i. Breach of express warranty under Minn. Stat. Ann. Section 336.2-313 (Count XIII), and implied warranty of merchantability under Minn. Stat. Ann. Section 336.2-314 (Count XIV), on behalf of the Minnesota subclass. On March 26, 2021, BMW moved to consolidate the action with a related case. Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel consolidated the cases for purposes of discovery and case management. BMW then filed the motion to dismiss the 2AC in its entirety. The Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition and BMW filed a reply. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. II. Discussion A. Standing BMW contends that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims on behalf of those who purchased different BMW PHEV model vehicles. It argues that courts in this District have routinely found that the "Plaintiffs have no standing to pursue claims on behalf of vehicles they never leased, purchased, or used." The Plaintiffs cite decisions in this District that have taken a more permissive approach to standing in class action cases. In those decisions, the court analyzed a named plaintiff's standing to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of different models based on a three-part test developed by the Third Circuit in Haas v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 526 F.2d 1083, 1088-89 (3d Cir. 1975) (herein, the "Haas test"). Under the Haas test, a plaintiff may have standing "to assert claims on behalf of putative class members regarding products they did not personally purchase where (1) the basis of the claims is the same, (2) the products are closely related, and (3) the claims are against the same defendants." Judge McNulty opines that all three Haas factors point in the Plaintiffs' favor. First, the claims share an identical factual basis. The 2AC, as currently alleged, concerns one type of allegedly defective battery that was used in different models of cars. Second, the products are closely related, as the vehicles are all PHEVs which contain such a battery. Third, BMW is the only defendant in the case. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have standing to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of all the Class Vehicles. At the class certification stage, however, the Plaintiffs will have the burden of proving that the case is appropriately brought as a class action. B. MMWA Claims BMW argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims must be dismissed on their face because the 'number of named plaintiffs" in the 2AC is "less than one hundred." The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert a counterargument by negative implication from the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). CAFA, they say, contains express exceptions which evince "Congress's intent to exempt certain federal statutory claims," and no others, from the reach of CAFA. Those exceptions, the Plaintiffs claim, are exclusive, and Congress' choice "not to exclude MMWA claims from CAFA cannot be deemed inadvertent." Judge McNulty explains that in Opheim v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. CV2002483KMESK, 2021 WL 2621689, at *12 (D.N.J. June 25, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not directly resolved the question of whether a court may exercise jurisdiction over an MMWA claim where, as in the present case, the complaint does not name 100 plaintiffs but the court would otherwise have jurisdiction to hear the case under CAFA. In the absence of appellate guidance, courts in this District routinely used to hold that CAFA could provide "a way around the MMWA's 100-named-plaintiff requirement." That changed, however, after the Ninth Circuit became the first Court of Appeals to hold that CAFA does not provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction in a MMWA class action with fewer than 100 named plaintiffs. Subsequently, every court in this District to address Floyd has followed its reasoning. Judge McNulty adheres to his reasoning in Opheim. Because the 2AC names fewer than 100 plaintiffs, and therefore does not satisfy the MMWA's procedural prerequisites, the Court must dismiss the MMWA claims (Counts I and II). C. State Law Warranty Claims The Plaintiffs bring state law claims for breach of express and implied warranties under California's SBA (Counts III and IV), Texas state law (Counts IX and X), and Minnesota state law (XIII). Judge McNulty grants the motion to dismiss the express warranty claims but denies the motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims. He finds that (i) because the Court has found that it is possible for BMW to comply with both the Safety Act and state-warranty laws invoked in the 2AC, and because said laws are not an obstacle to the Safety Act's purpose, the state-warranty claims are not preempted; (ii) the 2AC's failure to plead facts suggesting that the Plaintiffs' vehicles were actually defective is fatal to their SBA express warranty claim; (iii) the recall rendered the vehicles, at least until repaired, unfit for their intended use, so BMW's motion to dismiss the 2AC's implied warranty claim under the SBA is denied; (iv) the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims fail under Texas and Minnesota law (Counts IX and XIII); and (v) insofar as the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claim is premised upon the Recall requirements rendering the PHEV, at least until repaired, unfit for its intended use, they have successfully stated a claim. D. Consumer-Protection Claims The Plaintiffs also bring statutory consumer-protection claims under California (UCL and CLRA, Counts V and VIII), Nevada (NDPTA, Count VII), Texas (TDTPA, Count XI), and Minnesota law (MPCFA, Count XII). According to the Plaintiffs, if BMW had revealed that using the battery system would risk the PHEVs catching fire, neither the Plaintiffs nor the absent class members would have purchased their vehicles. In moving to dismiss, BMW asserts that the 2AC neither (1) pleads facts suggesting that BMW knew of the defect when the Plaintiffs purchased or leased the PHEVs; nor (2) alleges that the Plaintiffs relied on the misrepresentations or omissions. Because the 2AC plausibly alleges both BMW's knowledge of the defect at the time of sale and Plaintiffs' reliance on BMW's alleged misrepresentations and omissions, Judge McNulty denies BMW's motion to dismiss as to the consumer-protection claims. E. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that BMW violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in their warranties. The 2AC alleges that "every contract in California contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and that BMW breached this covenant "by, inter alia, failing to notify the Plaintiffs and the Class Members of the Battery Defects in the Class Vehicles, and failing to fully properly repair this defect." While the Plaintiffs allege generally that BMW breached the warranty, the 2AC does not provide facts suggesting that BMW "unfairly interfered with their rights to receive the benefits of the contract." Compensation for an unmanifested defect, for example, is not properly a benefit of the express warranty at all; as noted, the express warranty claim fails not because BMW took some bad-faith action to circumvent it, but only because these particular plaintiffs have failed to allege that their vehicles had a nonconformity. The implied warranty claims, by contrast, survive, and if breached, may support relief. But the Plaintiffs' "labels and conclusions" do not appear to be distinguishable from Plaintiffs' claims of actual breach, and do not support an implied-covenant claim. Therefore, Judge McNulty finds that the implied-covenant claim is not plausibly alleged and must be dismissed. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth, Judge McNulty grants in part and denies in part BMW's motion to dismiss. The MMWA and state express warranty claims are dismissed in their entirety (Counts I (MMWA), IV (SBA), IX (Texas), XIII (Minnesota)). The MMWA implied warranty (Count II) and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count VI) claims are also dismissed in their entirety. The motion to dismiss is denied as to the state implied warranty claims and state consumer protection claims. A separate order will be issued. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/jcnrexhx from Leagle.com. BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON, REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and authorizing notice to be issued to all persons similarly situated. Body & Pole offers in-studio and online classes for dance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mxAxyO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq. Alexander Granovsky, Esq. GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC 48 Wall Street, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 524-6001 E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com ag@g-s-law.com BOSWORTH CO: Dickson Files 2nd Supplement to Collective Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC section 216(b), v. THE BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff files a second supplement to his motion to proceed as a collective action and to authorize notice to similarly situated employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as follows. Bosworth served discovery responses after 5:00 o'clock p.m. on June 6, 2022. The Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's preliminary discovery requests further support Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a collective action by conceding that there are at least six types of employees paid in or in part by ticket hours, as opposed to actual hours worked. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7LpfZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fernando M. Bustos, Esq. Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq. Brandon C. Callahan, Esq. BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 1980 Lubbock, Texas 79408-1980 Telephone: (806) 780-3976 Facsimile: (806) 780-3800 E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Racism, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Byard, writing for Halifax Examiner, reports that Rubin "Rocky" Coward is "extremely optimistic" about changes he feels are imminent within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Coward ⁠-- along with JP Menard, Marc Frenette, and Wallace Fowler ⁠-- are the four plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the CAF, and are are suing for systemic racism and institutional discrimination they say they faced within the Canadian military. "Good things come not only to those that are willing to wait but those that are ready to fight," said Coward in an interview with the Examiner. "Because we're not asking them to do this, we're demanding this." Coward, who is Black, is retired from the air force. "When I finished serving in Germany back in 1990, I went to Greenwood and I faced systemic racism there for three years, and I ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder," Coward said. "Actually, I think it was the first case diagnosed in the country for racism within the system." Coward said the catalyst for the case goes back to May 11, 2011, when former prosecutor, now judge, Perry Borden introduced him to Wallace "Wally" Fowler. "Wally Fowler served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 2000 to 2003, and regrettably he'd encountered systemic and horrific racism at CFB Borden Ontario, then he went to CFB Esquimalt, and then he went to Trenton, and at all three bases he faced horrific racism," Coward said. "And it's well documented, quite frankly." Coward said Fowler developed post-traumatic stress disorder and had two nervous breakdowns because of the racism he faced in the military. "He told me his story and he came with a plethora of documents, and I read through them and I said, 'Yeah, Wally, I think I can help you but it's going to be probably a marathon. We're not going to be able to get through this in a couple of days, a couple of weeks, maybe not even a couple of years.'" Coward said in 2011 they began to solicit politicians including then-prime minister Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, who was then national defense minister, and the chief of defence staff. On March 14, 2014 Coward and Fowler held a press conference at the Halifax North Memorial Public Library when they were approached by three white former members of the CAF -- Dennis Manuge, Rollie Lawless, and Rob Dobson -- who'd also suffered setbacks through the military. He said the three men came forward to help support Coward and Fowler. "It's interesting to note that subsequent to them saying the exact same things that I'd been saying for probably almost 20 years, it began to get traction," Coward said. Two years later in June of 2016, Coward said he and Fowler suggested the idea of a class-action lawsuit to the law firm Stewart McKelvey. He said the firm later agreed to take them on on a contingency basis. Coward said they were asked if they knew of anyone else with similar experiences within the CAF. JP Menard, a young Black man who had been in the military and who came to their press conferences in 2014, and Marc Frenette, an Indigenous man who said he's suffered discrimination at CFB Petawawa, joined on as plaintiffs. The class-action lawsuit against the CAF was formally filed on December 16, 2016. 'I'm very optimistic' Though the details are still being worked out, Coward said an agreement in principle has been reached. "I'm very optimistic because we've been working in close collaboration with the (federal) Department of Justice, which is the legal counsel for the Canadian Armed Forces and we seem to be no longer at a crossroads, as it were, but we've implemented cultural competency and trauma-informed care in our deliberations, and that gives me significantly great hope," Coward said. Coward said one of the most important aspects of the lawsuit is to have systemic and institutional changes within the framework of the Canadian Armed Forces, and to have oversight from an external review authority. "They're serious because they don't have any other option," Coward said. "Because they're negotiating with us as opposed to going to court to fight with us. Because they recognize that the … specific cases that we have, they're so egregious, in my humble opinion, if it were to go public it would be a national scandal." The cultural competency component, Coward said, will encompass a more stringent screening process for people, including white people, who are not only entering the military, but also for those already serving within the military. The external review authority will be an independent body of racially visible and Indigenous people — Coward's team are in the process of selecting those members — that will function "like an oversight for the Canadian Armed Forces as it relates to systemic racism and institutional discrimination." People of colour in the military will now be able to file complaints directly to the external review committee rather than with their superior ranking officers within the CAF. "The change is going to be in seeing how these institutions act subsequent to being monitored, and subsequent to being provided with information that . . . is going to show that there've been breaches to the agreement, and by seeing expressly and specifically what they're going to do," Coward said. Apology to the No. 2 Construction Battalion In March, the government held a virtual press conference where National Defence Minister Anita Anand reaffirmed Canada's commitment to apologize to the former members of the No. 2 Construction Battalion. The apology is set to take place on July 9 in Truro. The initial commitment was announced over a year ago by Anand's predecessor Harjit Sajjan. Since then, a National Apology Advisory Committee was formed to help advise the government on what the apology should entail and/or if it should be expanded to include other Black members of the Canadian military who faced discrimination, and other Black Canadians who were outright denied the right to serve in in the Canadian military. Douglas Ruck is a member of the National Apology Advisory Committee. He spoke at the virtual press conference back in March. "The men of the Battalion enlisted in obscurity. They trained in obscurity. They served in obscurity. And they came home to a country that was quite willing to allow their service and their sacrifice to fall into obscurity," said Ruck. "The apology is important. Let us in no way diminish that. The words that are spoken, the way they are delivered, the person who delivers them -- all this is significant. But equally so, and perhaps of greater importance, is what comes after that. That's the unknown." "The consultation made it very clear that if, in fact, the apology is not followed by substantive measures, then those words, despite the best of intentions, will have no meaning, and minimal impact." "The minister's words are important. They must make a difference. But if things remain the same, then all of this is for naught," said Ruck. When asked about the apology to the No. 2 Construction Battalion, Coward's thoughts echoed those of Ruck's. "If they're sincere in it -- and I put a caveat over that -- if they're sincere in it, it could be the road to healing," Coward said. "Because as you can well appreciate, Harper apologized to the Indigenous people but we didn't see any significant change. We've seen Trudeau apologize to the Indigenous people, and some of them up in Northern Ontario, 28, 29 years, still (have) no clean drinking water. That's unconscionable. We see empty platitudes in those apologies, in my opinion, and so if there's going to be an apology it should come from the head of the government, and it should be done in sincerity." "There's a disingenuousness that we've seen over centuries from European people, so I'm under no illusion that they're going to do a 180-turn and tomorrow everything is gonna be kumbaya. I'm not naive in the slightest sense." "I'm saying let them give the apology and let's see how they move. Let's see how they treat us subsequent to the apology." "Under section 15 of the Charter we are promised that we have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination on prohibited grounds, and essentially we are demanding that that not just be a statute, but be a reality for racially visible and Indigenous people in this country, because it's gone on far too long." [GN] CAREDX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Did you lose money on investments in CareDx? If so, please visit CareDx, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights. Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNA) between February 24, 2021, and May 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CareDx is a diagnostics company that offers diagnostic testing services, products, and digital healthcare software for organ transplant patients and care providers. Testing services for kidney and heart transplant recipients represented at least 85% of CareDx's total revenues, and the Company's AlloSure blood test for transplant recipients was the Company's primary source of revenue. Additionally, the higher reimbursement payment rates for its Medicare-approved tests drove growth of the Company's average sale price ("ASP"), an important metric for investors. Throughout the Class Period, CareDx reported growing revenue and strong demand in the Company's testing services segment. Defendants also emphasized to investors the success of the Company's RemoTraC service -- a remote, home-based, blood-drawing service that the Company launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period Defendants misled investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes to inflate testing services revenue and demand, including pushing a surveillance protocol through inaccurate marketing materials, offering extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and other providers, and improperly bundling expensive testing services with other blood tests as part of the RemoTraC service; (2) these practices, and others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of regulatory scrutiny; and (3) these practices rendered the Company's testing services revenue reported throughout the Class Period artificially inflated. The truth began to emerge on October 28, 2021, when CareDx revealed for the first time that it was the subject of at least three government investigations related to its "accounting and public reporting practices." In response to this news, CareDx's stock price fell 27%, from a closing price of $70.34 per share on October 28, 2021, to a closing price of $51 per share on October 29, 2021. On April 15, 2022, CareDx's former Head of Community Nephrology, Dr. Michael Olymbios, filed a complaint in California Superior Court that provided extensive detail about: (1) Defendants' misconduct, including the use of RemoTraC to improperly bundle the Company's most expensive testing services, including AlloSure, with other blood tests, that led to the government investigations; (2) Defendants' knowledge of the misconduct throughout the Class Period; and (3) their attempts to conceal the misconduct. In response to this filing, CareDx's stock price fell an additional 8% the next trading day. Finally, after the markets closed on May 5, 2022, CareDx issued a press release announcing financial results for the first quarter of 2022, reporting a near 5% decline in the ASP of the Company's testing services. In response to this news, CareDx's stock price fell 18.5%, from a closing price of $31.66 per share on May 5, 2022, to a closing price of $25.87 per share on May 6, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased CareDx common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit CareDx, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] CARVANA LLC: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Delivery Fee for Used Cars ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAJAE BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 220600355 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and Pennsylvania's Consumer Credit Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal practice of charging delivery fees to consumers in Pennsylvania, including the Plaintiff, who purchased used cars. The Defendant knew or should have known that it was impermissible to charge or collect a delivery fee from its customers at it is unlawful under Pennsylvania law. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers lost money and paid more in interest and fees than they would have had the Defendant acted lawfully and charged or collected the interest and fees it was permitted by law to charge and collect, says the suit. Carvana, LLC is a used car dealership company, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Jones Seeks Payment of Earned Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- LINCSTON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00603 (E.D. Mo., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Texas Minimum Wage Act, the Louisiana's Wage Payment Act, and applicable state wage and hour laws by failing to properly pay promised commissions to employees. The Plaintiff worked as a benefits consultant and sales agent for the Defendants from November 2016 until April 2021. Centene Corporation is a publicly traded managed care company based in St. Louis, Missouri. Centene Management Company LLC is a managed care organization based in St. Louis, Missouri. WellCare Health Plans, Inc. is an American health insurance company headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc. is a medical practice company headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 - and – Brandon Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE 818 Lafayette Avenue, Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered in Fox ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN FOX, et al, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. trading and doing business as CHIPOTLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-01448-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman, IV entered a second amended case management order as follows: -- Counsel shall meet and confer on July 1, 2022 the date, manner, and protocols governing (a) the secure viewing of the data model and data dictionary for Chipotle's rewards program database and Enterprise Data Warehouse, and (b) the viewing Chipotle's video footage for a day of Plaintiffs' choosing on or before: The viewing of these items shall July 25, 2022 be completed by: -- The Plaintiffs shall have until August 1, 2022 to articulate specific requests for additional information after review of the data dictionary/model, and/or to request the viewing of additional video footage: -- Chipotle shall have until August 8, 2022 to advise Plaintiffs' counsel whether it will produce the additional information or object (articulating reasons for the objections, if any): If Chipotle objects, Plaintiffs August 15, 2022 shall file any motion seeking to compel the additional information on or before: -- The Plaintiffs' final expert September 5, 2022 report relating to certification (or confirmation that the preliminary report, previously filed, is deemed final) shall be filed by: -- The Defendant's expert report September 28, 2022 relating to certification shall be filed by: -- Any depositions of class October 14, 2022 certification experts shall be completed by: -- Discovery relating to class October 14, 2022 certification shall close on: Chipotle, is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission burritos that are made to order in front of the customer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zpGEg4 at no extra charge.[CC] CHOP'T CREATIVE SALAD: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chop't Creative Salad Company, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chop't Creative Salad Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03295-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chop't Creative Salad Company -- https://www.choptsalad.com/ -- provides packaged food services. The Company offers prepared foods, salad, bowls, and other related food specialties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Files Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Coca-Cola Company. The case is styled as Glenn Coe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00428-UNA (W.D.N.Y., June 5, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an American multinational beverage corporation, best known as the producer of Coca-Cola.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00254-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman entered an order granting the joint motion to extend briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification as follows: -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs June 20, 2022 amended motion for class certification is: -- The deadline for the Defendants' July 11, 2022 amended motion for class certification is: -- The deadline for the Plaintiff's July 25, 2022 reply brief in response to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' amended motion is: A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O71Qf8 at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT ONE: S.D. New York Grants Anderson's Bid for Sanctions ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: Orrin S. Anderson, Chapter 7, Debtor. Orrin S. Anderson, a/k/a Orrin Anderson, a/k/a Orrin Scott Anderson, Debtor and Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A. Defendant, Case No. 14-22147 (RDD), Adv. Pro. No. 15-08214 (RDD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Robert Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issues a Corrected Memorandum of Decision: (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions; and (2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. I. Background Plaintiff Anderson brought the adversary proceeding for himself and as a putative class action to enforce his and the other class members' bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(b) of their unsecured debts to Defendant Credit One and its successors and assigns, and the injunction protecting the discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(2). The basis for the claimed discharge violation was Credit One's conceded systematic refusal after the discharge of an unsecured debt upon which it was a reporting entity to notify credit reporting agencies of the debt's changed status from "charged off" to being subject to the bankruptcy discharge. As noted in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 884 F.3d 382, 385 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 144 (2018), "charging off" a delinquent debt "means the bank changed the debt from a receivable to a loss on its own accounting books." The fact that such a debt has been charged off thus does not mean that it is uncollectible as a matter of law. In contrast, an obligor on a debt discharged under section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and subject to the statutory injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code cannot be compelled to pay it. Credit One acknowledged the distinction, notwithstanding its repeated contention (including as recently as its objection to the present class certification motion) that a "charge off" is no different than a bankruptcy discharge. Extensive case law and commentary recognize that, given the importance of accurate credit reporting to consumers' access to credit (or at least consumers' widely held belief in its role), the pressure to pay debt exerted by the repeated, unexcused refusal to correct a credit report to reflect a bankruptcy discharge subjects the violator to contempt sanctions under Taggert v. Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1801-02 (2019). In the case, Credit One never offered a legitimate reason for persisting in its policy not to correct obligors' credit reports to reflect their bankruptcy discharge, with the exception that it had sold the underlying debt before the discharge and therefore allegedly had no duty to update the reports and its related contention that because of such sales it had no continuing motive to pressure its former obligors to pay. II. Discussion In his Memorandum of Decision, Judge Drain explains the Court's reasons for granting the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (the "Sanctions Motion") based on Credit One's repeated, lengthy, and willful discovery failures, including its submission of false affidavits and repeated misrepresentations to the Court -- made as late as the middle of oral argument on the Sanctions Motion -- before it conceded the falsity of such affidavits and representations, which thwarted the Plaintiff's efforts to disprove Credit One's "no duty" and "no motive to collect" defenses. Thus he enters a default judgment on liability and a partial judgment on sanctions against Credit One in favor of the Plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vi), incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7037. Judge Drain also explains the Court's reasons for granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, by (a) certifying an opt-out class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7023, comprising "all individuals who: after May 2, 2007, have had a consumer credit report relating to them prepared by any of the credit reporting agencies in which one or more of their Tradeline unsecured accounts or debts with Credit One was not reported as discharged despite the fact that such debts had been discharged as a result of their bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code," with customary carve-outs, and (b) denying to certify an injunctive class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) comprising the same people, on the basis that such request is now, albeit belatedly, moot in the light of a Stipulation and Order agreed by Credit One on March 29, 2017 after its discovery failures came to light. III. Conclusion Judge Drain has determined that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (a) Credit One will be held in violation of the Plaintiff's discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) Credit One will be sanctioned under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code employing the standard for contempt with respect to such violation (i) for actual damages comprising Plaintiff's reasonable fees and expenses, including legal fees and expenses, in enforcing the discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2), and (ii) a mild non-compensatory sum between $50 and $1,000, such amount to be determined in the light of Bmw of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. at 559, and Jennings v. Yurkiw, 18 F.4th 383, 390 (2d Cir. 2021), after the Court decides the specific amount of the Plaintiff's reasonable fees and expenses and the size, after the time to opt out, of the class certified therein. Judge Drain has also determined that a damages class will be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) comprising "all individuals who after May 3, 2007, have had a consumer credit report relating to them prepared by any of the credit reporting agencies in which one or more of their tradeline accounts or debts with Credit One was not reported by Credit One as discharged or included in bankruptcy but, rather, as charged off or -$0- balance notwithstanding the fact that such debt(s) had been discharged as a result of their bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; provided, that such debt(s) will have been (i) unsecured and (ii) not the subject of a valid and enforceable reaffirmation agreement," with a sub-class comprising the forgoing people who, in addition, paid any of such debt(s), with the members of such sub-class to be entitled to repayment of such debt payments in addition to the sanctions set forth in 1(b) above if such repayment is shown to have been proximately caused by Credit One's credit reporting policy. Such class members, including the members of the sub-class, will have the right to opt out of the class/sub-class, in which case, as to such opt outs, the Court's findings as to liability and damages will not be binding on Credit One. Judge Drain's determination of the sanctions to be imposed under (1)(b)(i)-(ii) (the amount of sanctions under (1)(b)(ii) being applied per each class member who does not timely opt out) and under (2) as to the subclass will be binding on each class/sub-class member who does not timely opt out of the class/sub-class. The Plaintiff will promptly file and serve the proposed notice to the class/sub-class and schedule a hearing on his request for approval of such notice and notice procedures for the class. Such notice will clearly set forth the consequences of opting out of the class/sub-class, namely, the fact that (a) any class members who do not opt out of the class/sub-class will be bound by the Court's decision herein, and (b) any class member who opts out of the class/sub-class will have to separately establish Credit One's liability and, if established, the proper sanction therefor, including the potential for proving additional damages than those that would be awarded to class members who do not timely opt out of the class/sub-class. The Plaintiff will also schedule a hearing on the amount of his reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses, in enforcing the discharge, and on the calculation of the non-compensatory sanction in (1)(b)(ii), that would apply to himself and, separately, as to each class/sub-class member that does not timely opt out of the class. The Plaintiff will promptly email a proposed order and judgment to the Court consistent with the foregoing, copying the counsel for Credit One on such email. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Corrected Memorandum of Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zxhwju5 from Leagle.com. BOISE, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, by George F. Carpinello, Esq. -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- and Adam R. Shaw, Esq. -- ashaw@bsfllp.com -- and CHARLES JUNTIKKA & ASSOCIATES LLP, by Charles Juntikka, Esq., for Plaintiff Orrin S. Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. WHITE & CASE, by J. Christopher Shore, Esq. -- cshore@whitecase.com -- and Andrew E. Tomback, Esq. -- atomback@mclaughlinstern.com -- for Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Select CBD Wellness Drops ------------------------------------------------------------------ MJBizDaily reports that a 77-year-old Oregon resident sued marijuana multistate operator Curaleaf Holdings, seeking class action status for hundreds of consumers who bought Select CBD wellness drops last summer that instead contained "substantial amounts" of THC. The 13-page lawsuit, filed on May 30 in U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon, alleges that Curaleaf engaged in unlawful trade practices, gross negligence and "utter lack of reasonable and adequate safety and protocols when it manufactured, bottled, labeled, shipped, and sold its tainted products. . . ." The suit asks that each consumer who bought the mislabeled drops receive their actual damages or $200, whichever amount is greater. Massachusetts-based Curaleaf said in a statement on May 26 that it is aware of the new class action lawsuit, but "neither the lead plaintiff in this suit, nor his attorney has reached out to Curaleaf prior to filing this additional suit. "Curaleaf has provided appropriate compensation to nearly every customer who has reported being affected by the mislabeled product, and the company believes that seeking to resolve remaining customers concerns through such a class action will only enrich lawyers and not benefit customers and patients." The company previously apologized for the mix-up, attributing it to "unintentional human error." Curaleaf worked with Oregon regulators to recall the mislabeled batches. About 500 bottles of the CBD drops containing elevated THC were sold to consumers prior to the recall, according to the company. A number of customers required medical attention. Curaleaf reportedly settled 10 individual suits earlier this year, including one for $50,000. Curaleaf said it made significant changes to its operation and protocols to prevent future mistakes. "The health and safety of our patients and customers remains our number one priority and we feel confident about the changes made to ensure this doesn't happen again," Curaleaf said in the May 26 statement. Oregon marijuana regulators are seeking a 70-day suspension and $200,000 fine against Curaleaf, according to The Oregonian. Curaleaf said in its statement that it is near a final resolution with regulators. [GN] DANCEFIT INTERACTIVE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dancefit Interactive LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dancefit Interactive LLC, d/b/a Body Wrappers, Case No. 1:22-cv-04643 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dancefit Interactive -- https://dancefitinteractive.com/ -- offers clothing to fit a dance lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com DENVER, CO: Exclusion of Plaintiffs From Epps' Arrest Class Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ELISABETH EPPS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01878-RBJ, Consolidated with No. 1:20-cv-01922-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies the 13 Individual Plaintiffs' motion to exclude them from a plaintiff class certified by the Court on June 28, 2021. I. Introduction The matter is before the Court on a motion filed by (1) Benjamin Baily; (2) Asa Briggs; (3) John Cameron; (4) Dan Delany; (5) Ailyn Havens; (6) Lily Knowles; (7) Jon Pflazer; (8) David Seaver; (9) Sable Spottswood; (10) Jonathan Ziegler; (11) James Sweetman; (12) Gregory Trickle; and (13) Cody Schmitt. These 13 individuals ("Movants") request exclusion from a plaintiff class certified by the Court on June 28, 2021. II. Background The Plaintiffs in the case sued the City and County of Denver (Denver) for Denver Police Department (DPD) actions during racial-justice protests in downtown Denver in the wake of George Floyd's murder. A group of Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Court certified the following class, called the Arrest Class, on June 28, 2021: Those persons who were present during the protests in downtown Denver, Colorado, from May 30, 2020 through June 5, 2020, who were arrested for violation of emergency curfew (D.R.M.C. 1-13), and in some cases were also arrested on an accompanying charge of failure to obey a lawful order (D.R.M.C. 38-31(c)), who were taken into police custody and detained for some period of time, but who were not charged with any other violations, and whose charges were dismissed. The Court appointed Elizabeth Wang and Makeba Rutahindurwa of Loevy & Loevy as the class counsel. The parties proposed, and the Court approved, a notice letter to potential class members. The first page of the approved notice informed potential class members that they had two options: "DO NOTHING: Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain rights," or "ASK TO BE EXCLUDED: Get out of this Lawsuit. Get no benefits from it. Keep rights." The cover page also informed potential class members that "their options are explained further in this notice" and that, "to ask to be excluded, they must act before September 13, 2021." The notice's second page contained a table of contents indicating that page six answered the question "how do I ask the Court to exclude me from the Class?" On page six, the approved class notice laid out clear requirements for exclusion from the Arrest Class: To ask to be excluded, you must send an Exclusion Request in the form of a letter sent by mail, stating that you want to be excluded from Fitouri v. Denver. Be sure to include your name and address, and sign the letter. You must mail your Exclusion Request postmarked by September 13, 2021, to: Fitouri v. Denver Exclusions, Loevy & Loevy, 2060 Broadway, Suite 460, Boulder, CO 80302. You may also get an Exclusion Request form at the website www.loevy.com. The class counsel mailed the approved notice to class members, including the Movants, on July 31, 2021. Before the opt-out period ended, 13 members of the Arrest Class (the Movants) had arranged to be represented by attorneys Baumgartner Law, LLC and Been & Isley, PC (collectively, B&B). The Movants had each been sent the approved class notice. B&B learned "in the summer of 2021" that at least one of their clients had received the class notice. The client sent B&B a photograph of the notice's first page. On Aug. 4, 2021, B&B sent the class counsel a letter stating that B&B represented 57 people in protest-related claims against Denver, representing that some of B&B's clients' claims may overlap with the Arrest Class' claims, listing B&B's clients, requesting class counsel inform B&B of whom the class counsel had contacted, and asking the class counsel to refrain from future direct contacts with B&B clients. The class counsel did not respond. On Sept. 13, 2021 -- which happened to be the last day to opt out of the Arrest Class -- B&B filed complaints against Denver (Agwu v. Denver, No. 21-cv-02478-RBJ (D. Colo.); Barbour v. Denver, No. 21-cv-02477-KLM (D. Colo.)). A few months later, Defendant Denver informed B&B that the Movants had not opted out of the Arrest Class and their arrest-related claims in the Agwu and Barbour cases should therefore be dismissed. In January 2022, B&B informed the class counsel that they believed they had opted the thirteen movants out of the Arrest Class. The class counsel disagreed. On Feb. 11, 2022, B&B asked the Court to issue an order removing the Movants from the Arrest Class. The class counsel and class representatives opposed the motion. III. Discussion The dispute boils down to two questions: First, did B&B's Aug. 4, 2021 letter opt movants out of the Arrest Class? Second, should the Court exclude movants from the Arrest Class anyway? To both questions, the answer is "no," Judge Jackson holds. He does not doubt that the Movants would prefer B&B represent them on their arrest-related claims. But in the legal system, it is a lawyer's job to jump through procedural hoops on their client's behalf. When busy lawyers neglect to dot i's and cross t's, clients sometimes forfeit claims. That happened in the present case. The Movants can litigate their non-arrest-related claims separately, and they will have the opportunity to opt-out of any settlement reached by class counsel. But Judge Jackson will not remove them from the Arrest Class at this point. IV. Disposition For these reasons, Judge Jackson denied the motion to exclude 13 Plaintiffs from the Arrest Class. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3sjsueey from Leagle.com. DIA STYLING CO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dia Styling Co. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Dia Styling Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-04660 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dia & Co -- https://www.dia.com/ -- offers personal styling and plus size clothing for women exclusively in sizes 10-32.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Connecticut Court Certifies Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nolan S. McCready, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that four former employees of Eversource Energy Company recently obtained partial class certification of their claims. However, the District of Connecticut ruled that because the named plaintiffs are all former participants in the plan, they could not seek prospective relief, and only granted certification with respect to claims for retrospective relief. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint sought prospective injunctive relief as well as retrospective relief for damages related to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty for charging excessive recordkeeping fees, investing in a suite of actively managed target date funds known as the Fidelity Freedom Funds instead of the lower cost, passively managed Freedom Index Funds, and imprudently investing in and retaining other specific investment options. Overall, 14 of 19 investment options in the plan were challenged, and all challenged options were invested in by at least one of the four named plaintiffs. Defendants opposed class certification on the grounds that the named plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to: (1) seek prospective relief as they were not current participants in the plan; and (2) claim losses on behalf of funds in which they did not personally invest. The Court agreed with the defendants on their first argument, but disagreed as to the second. First, the Court found that although the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory definition of "participants" in order to bring a cause of action under ERISA, they were still required to show the likelihood that they were subject to future harm when seeking prospective injunctive relief to satisfy Article III standing. Because the plaintiffs were no longer enrolled in the plan, the Court found "the defendant's future management of the Plan does not pose a 'real or immediate threat' to the plaintiffs and they have no Article III standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief." Second, the Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the different approaches to determine the extent of a plaintiff's Article III standing to seek relief when suing in a derivative capacity under section 502(a)(2). One approach finds that a plaintiff has standing by simply participating in the plan and alleging injury to the entire plan, regardless of individual loss. The second approach requires a plaintiff to show sufficient injury of individual loss and then can only sue for losses for funds in which the plaintiff invested. Here, the Court did not opine on the correct approach, but concluded the plaintiffs had constitutional standing because their Second Amended Complaint identified individual losses stemming from the defendants' alleged breaches. Further, the Court found plaintiffs could also bring claims on behalf of putative class members who invested in the non-challenged funds (i.e., funds that none of the named plaintiffs invested in) because the alleged imprudence of defendants' investment process implicated the "same set of concerns" of all putative class members and the derivative actions under Section 502(a)(2) are brought on behalf of the entire plan. Finally, although the Court denied certification prospectively, it did grant plaintiffs leave to amend to add a current plan participant with standing to seek such relief as a named plaintiff within thirty days. With nearly 200 similar lawsuits filed in the past few years, this decision provides significant insight into the Article III analysis district courts undertake in the class certification context and highlights an argument all employers should make when former plan participants are seeking prospective relief. [GN] EVOLENT HEALTH: Wants to Present Live Testimony at Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA POLICEPENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., FRANKWILLIAMS, NICHOLAS MCGRANE, and SETH BLACKLEY, Case No. (), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to present live testimony from their expert economist, Lucy Allen, at the June 24, 2022 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants additionally seek leave to file a short supplemental brief responding to two reports Plaintiffs' expert, Mr. Coffman, has written (or willhave written) before the June 24 hearing. The Defendants ask the Court to permit them to file a short supplemental brief -- not to exceed six pages in length—addressing this new evidence. The Plymouth County Retirement System provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to approximately 11500 participants from 24 municipalities. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MtnsRC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Robert R. Vieth, Esq. Abigail J. Johansen, Esq. HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC 8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700 Tysons Corner, VA Telephone: (703) 584-8366 Facsimile: (703) 584-8901 E-mail: rvieth@hirschlerlaw.com ajohansen@hirschlerlaw.com - and - Ashley C. Parrish, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 626-2627 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 E-mail: aparrish@kslaw.com - and - Paul R. Bessette, Esq. Michael J. Biles, Esq. Jill R. Carvalho, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2050 Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com mbiles@kslaw.com jcarvalho@kslaw.com - and - Michael R. Smith, Esq. Peter M. Starr, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5140 E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com pstarr@kslaw.com FAIRLIFE LLC: Milk Cow Mistreatment Class Action Settled for $21MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Fairlife, parent company Coca-Cola and other defendants agreed to pay $21 million to resolve claims that they lied to consumers about mistreating cows. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms milk products on or before April 27, 2022. The settlement covers milk, ice cream, butter, yogurt and other dairy products from both Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms. A full list of included products is available on the settlement website. According to a multidistrict litigation against Fairlife, Fair Oak Farms, Coca-Cola and other companies, Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms milk products use false advertising that promises the milk comes from dairy cows that are treated humanely. Specifically, labeling on Fairlife milk products reportedly claims the cows are treated with "the utmost care" and "extraordinary care and comfort." Despite these marketing claims, Fairlife allegedly mistreats cows and lies to customers about this conduct. Plaintiffs in the Fairlife class action lawsuit accuse the dairy brand of "horrific animal abuse." Instead of treating its cows fairly as customers expect, Fairlife allegedly lies to consumers and creates an ethical marketing facade in order to charge a higher price for its products. "Plaintiff's payment of the Fairlife Milk Products was at a premium since the Products were not worth their advertised prices because the statements were false and misleading," the Fairlife class action lawsuit contends. According to the plaintiffs, they and other customers would not have paid a premium price for Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms milk products if they knew the truth about the brand's treatment of dairy cows. Fairlife, Fair Oak Farms, Fairlife's parent company -- The Coca-Cola Co. -- and other defendants named in the case haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the consolidated class action lawsuit with a $21 million settlement. Under the terms of the deal, class members can collect a cash payment based on the Fairlife products they purchased. The settlement allows for refunds of up to 25%, though the deal caps payments for class members at $80 with proof of purchase or $20 without proof of purchase. Class members who claim purchases both with and without proof of purchase can collect payments of up to $100. Actual payment amounts may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Proof of purchase included with a claim could be a store receipt, physical milk bottle or other records that document purchases of eligible Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms products. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 25, 2022. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Sept. 28, 2022. In order to benefit from the settlement, Class Members must submit a valid claim form with the administrator by Dec. 27, 2022. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms milk products on or before April 27, 2022. The settlement covers milk, ice cream, butter, yogurt and other dairy products from both Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms. A full list of included products is available on the settlement website. Potential Award Up to $100 Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase required but need receipts for maximum award. Claim 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. Claim Form Deadline 12/27/2022 Case Name In re fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2909, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-03924-RMD-MDW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 09/28/2022 Settlement Website fairlifeMilkSettlement.com Claims Administrator In re fairlife Milk Products Litigation P.O. Box 5569 Portland, OR 97228–5569 info@fairlifeMilkSettlement.com 855-604-1865 Class Counsel Amy E Keller DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Melissa S Weiner PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW LLP Michael R Reese REESE LLP Defense Counsel Mark S Mester Robert C Collins III LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Timothy B Hardwicke Brian P Borchard GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP Jeffrey S Cashdan KING & SPALDING LLP [GN] FARRIN PC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Garey, Hatch Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, WILLIAM PARKER GAREY; AARON KENT CRUTHIS; JUSTIN BRENT BLAKESLEE; ADILAH HANEEFAH-KHADI McNEIL; CHARLOTTE MOFFAT CLEVENGER; BELINDA LEE STEINMETZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of James Scott Farrin; MARCARI, RUSSOTTO, SPENCER & BALABAN, P.C.; RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, L.L.P.; WALLACE PIERCE LAW, PLLC; R. BRADLEY VAN LANINGHAM; LANIER LAW GROUP, P.A.; JAMES S. FARRIN; DONALD W. MARCARI; SEAN A. COLE; JARED PIERCE; VAN LANINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, d/b/a Bradley Law Group; LISA LANIER; CHRIS ROBERTS; CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP; HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC; BENJAMIN T. COCHRAN; TED A. GREVE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; TED A. GREVE; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, L.L.P.; MICHAEL A. DEMAYO; HARDEE & HARDEE, LLP; CHARLES HARDEE; G. WAYNE HARDEE; KATHERINE E. ANDREWS-LANIER, Defendants-Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor. JOHNATHAN HATCH; MARK F. DVORSKY; KELLY EPPERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and SHATERIKA NICHOLSON, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL A. DEMAYO; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, L.L.P; THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, P.C.; JASON E. TAYLOR; LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.; BENJAMIN T. COCHRAN; HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC; CARL B. NAGLE; NAGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; JOHN J. GELSHENEN, JR.; DAVIS & GELSHENEN, LLP; MARK I. FARBMAN; MARK FARBMAN, P.A.; TED A. GREVE; TED A. GREVE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; CHRISTOPHER THOMAS MAY; ESTWANIK ANY MAY, P.L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, and MICHAEL J. LEWIS; LEWIS & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.; THOMAS KREGER, Defendants, Case Nos. 21-1478, 21-1480 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants. I. Background When law enforcement officers respond to a car crash in North Carolina, they generate an account of the accident on a standardized form. The form includes the type of information one might expect: the time and location of the accident, the make and model of the involved vehicles, a description of any injuries, a brief narrative of the crash, and so on. Crucially, the form also includes the names and home addresses of the drivers. Underneath the address field in the form is the text: "Same Address on Driver's License?" followed by "Yes" or "No" checkboxes. Law enforcement agencies store these accident reports, which are public records under North Carolina law. In addition, some private data brokers obtain and sell these accident reports. The Defendants are attorneys who wish to represent people involved in car crashes in North Carolina. They obtained accident reports from North Carolina law enforcement agencies or private data brokers and used the names and addresses on the reports to mail unsolicited attorney advertising materials to the drivers involved in those crashes. Two groups of drivers who received such mailings -- the Plaintiffs -- sued, invoking Section 2724(a) of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). Both groups of Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and injunctive relief, and one group also sought a declaratory judgment. After a flurry of motions and amended complaints, the district court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the damages claims for lack of standing but granted those motions insofar as the Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief. Ultimately, the district court ruled for the Defendants on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the DPPA applies only to persons who obtain personal information directly from a state DMV. In the case, the court noted, the "Defendants either obtained these reports directly from a local law enforcement office or they subscribed to third-party services that aggregated crash records." Because the Defendants never obtained records from a DMV, the court concluded that their "conduct thus falls outside the ambit of the DPPA, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The Plaintiffs then appealed. II. Discussion A. The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' standing to seek monetary and injunctive relief. The district court held that the Plaintiffs had standing to pursue damages but lacked standing to obtain an injunction. Consistent with TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2204 (2021), the district court found standing because the "Plaintiffs' alleged harms are closely related to the invasion of privacy, which has long provided a basis for recovery at common law." The Fourth Circuit agrees. Indeed, it recently rebuffed a nearly identical standing challenge in a case arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), another consumer privacy statute that, like the DPPA, provides a private right of action against offenders, citing Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 925 F.3d 643, 652-54 (4th Cir. 2019). Applying the same analysis as Krakauer, the Fourth Circuit reaches the same result. The Plaintiffs have alleged a legally cognizable privacy injury. The Defendants point out some differences between the common law privacy torts and the DPPA, but our inquiry "does not require an exact duplicate in American history and tradition." At bottom, the DPPA is aimed squarely at "the right of the plaintiff, in the phrase coined by Judge Cooley, 'to be let alone.'" Therefore, the Plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue claims for damages. B. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to damages. "A plaintiff can 'satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for prospective relief' either by demonstrating 'a sufficiently imminent injury in fact' or by demonstrating 'an ongoing injury.'" The district court rejected the Garey Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief on standing grounds because "there is no showing either in the Second Amended Complaint or in the Plaintiffs' Response to the Motion to Dismiss that the named Plaintiffs are subject to any imminent harm." The Fourth Circuit holds that having narrowed their case to "obtaining," the Garey Plaintiffs must allege that the Defendants are currently obtaining their personal information or will do so imminently, unless they receive injunctive relief. But under their theory of the case, the obtaining of their personal information is a fait accompli; the Garey Plaintiffs were already in car accidents, and the Defendants already obtained the relevant accident reports. That is enough for retrospective monetary relief, but it does not establish an ongoing or imminent injury. The Fourth Circuit says a future "obtaining" violation would only occur if a Plaintiff is involved in a future car accident in North Carolina, if law enforcement generates another crash report, and if the Defendants obtain that hypothetical report. But that mere possibility is hardly the kind of non-speculative, imminent danger that can support injunctive relief. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Garey Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief for lack of standing. The Hatch Plaintiffs' standing to seek injunctive relief presents a slightly different story, although the ending is the same. Unlike the Garey Plaintiffs, the Hatch Second Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) did not disavow a "use" theory of liability. Indeed, the operative Hatch complaint plainly alleges that the "Defendants knowingly obtained and used one or more Plaintiff's protected personal information from a motor vehicle record." Thus, although the Hatch Plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief under an "obtaining" theory for the same reasons as the Garey Plaintiffs, the Hatch Plaintiffs (unlike the Garey Plaintiffs) might establish standing for injunctive relief against the ongoing or future use of their previously obtained personal information. To do so, however, the Hatch Plaintiffs would have to allege that at the time of the operative complaint, the Defendants were using their personal information or were about to do so. To be sure, as the Hatch Plaintiffs note they also alleged that the "Defendants regularly and knowingly obtain and use personal information from motor vehicle records for purposes of marketing their services," and that some Defendants kept sending mailings like those sent to the named Plaintiffs even after this case commenced. But there is no allegation that the Plaintiffs were continuing to receive such mailings at the time of the operative complaint, nor that they are imminently likely to receive such mailings in the future. Instead, the allegations of ongoing conduct relate to the Defendants' practices in general, rather than specifically in connection with the named Plaintiffs. Thus, because the Hatch Plaintiffs (and, for that matter, the Garey Plaintiffs) have not alleged an ongoing or imminent "obtaining" or "use" violation vis-a-vis their own personal information, the district court properly dismissed their request for injunctive relief. C. The Fourth Circuit turns to the merits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' primary contention is that a driver's license is a motor vehicle record. Courts are divided on this question and the Fourth Circuit need take no position on this debate, because whether or not a driver's license is a "motor vehicle record," it is undisputed that none of the Defendants obtained any information "from" a driver's license. The Plaintiffs alternatively argue that even if the Defendants did not obtain their personal information from a license, "the information came from a driver's license," because the crash report's address field indicates whether the address is the same as that on the license. The Fourth Circuit finds that the legislative history clarifies the plain text: The DPPA imposes civil liability only on a defendant who obtains personal information from a motor vehicle record, but not on a defendant who merely obtains personal information that can be linked back to (i.e., derived from) such a record. Hence, the district court properly rejected the Plaintiffs' contentions to the contrary. Next, the Plaintiffs argue that a DMV database is or contains "motor vehicle records," such that "the name and address" on a driver's license, and thus on an accident report, "originate from the DMV" database. A DMV database may well constitute or contain a "motor vehicle record." But there is no allegation that the Defendants accessed a DMV database, as has occurred in other cases. Instead, the Defendants obtained accident reports from local law enforcement agencies or private data brokers. So regardless of whether a given DMV database is or contains "motor vehicle records," the Defendants here did not "obtain" any information "from" such a database. The Plaintiffs have one final theory as to the identity of the "motor vehicle record" in the case "from" which the Defendants obtained personal information: The accident report itself. This presents a difficult question. On the one hand, there is a non-frivolous textual argument that an accident report is a "record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit," because the report indicates whether a driver's address is the same as that shown on their license. It is well established that the Court Circuit 'does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,' 'absent exceptional circumstances.' "Rather, when a party in a civil case fails to raise an argument in the lower court and instead raises it for the first time before it, it may reverse only if the newly raised argument establishes "fundamental error" or a denial of fundamental justice." "This rigorous standard is an even higher bar than the 'plain error' standard applied in criminal cases, and the burden is on the party who has failed to preserve an argument to show that the standard is met." The Fourth Circuit holds that neither set of the Plaintiffs comes close to meeting this standard, and neither set of Plaintiffs has met their heavy burden of convincing it to consider for the first time on appeal their argument that an accident report is a "motor vehicle record." First, considering arguments in a civil case for the first time on appeal requires an extraordinarily compelling reason to do so. The procedural history provides extraordinarily compelling reasons not to do so. Second, the district court did not err in declining to revisit its prior decision, holding that the Hatch Plaintiffs had "failed to rebut the Court's original statement" that "there are no allegations that the accident reports are 'motor vehicle records.'" III. Conclusion The Fourth Circuit's holding is narrow and straightforward. The district court correctly held that the Plaintiffs have standing to seek damages, but not prospective relief. On the merits, the DPPA imposes civil liability only on "a person who knowingly obtains personal information, from a motor vehicle record," or one who uses or discloses personal information so obtained. That means what it says: A DPPA plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant obtained the plaintiff's personal information "from a motor vehicle record." Given that holding, the Fourth Circuit must affirm. Whether or not driver's licenses or DMV databases constitute "motor vehicle records" (questions on which the Fourth Circuit takes no position), the Defendants did not obtain the Plaintiffs' personal information from licenses or DMV databases. The Defendants obtained the Plaintiffs' personal information from accident reports -- but the Plaintiffs failed to preserve the argument that those accident reports are "motor vehicle records." Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yu68957n from Leagle.com. ARGUED: J. David Stradley -- stradley@whiteandstradley.com -- WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Matthew Nis Leerberg -- mleerberg@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, in Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Appellees. Amanda Mundell, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., for the Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Robert P. Holmes, IV -- rob@whiteandstradley.com -- WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP, in Raleigh, North Carolina; John F. Bloss HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC, in Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Reid C. Adams, Jr., Jonathan R. Reich, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Bradley M. Risinger -- brisinger@foxrothschild.com -- Troy D. Shelton -- tshelton@foxrothschild.com -- Jeffrey R. Whitley -- jwhitley@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, in Raleigh, North Carolina; Harold C. Spears, CAUDLE & SPEARS, P.A., in Charlotte, North Carolina; David Coats, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Appellees. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., for the Intervenor. FCA US: Nuwer Seeks July 28 Extension to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-CV-60432-SINGHAL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an enlargement of time to file their reply in support of class certification, up to and including July 28, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law on April 5, 2022. By agreement of the parties, and pursuant to Court order, Defendant FCA filed its response opposing class certification and its expert reports on June 5, 2022. The Plaintiffs' reply comes due on June 26, 2022. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXYBGs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Gail McQuilkin, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com hst@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: LACERA Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, together with Plaintiffs Amalgamated Bank, City of Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan, and Wisconsin Laborers' Pension Fund move the Court for an order certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), a class consisting of the following: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired FirstEnergy Securities during the period from February 21, 2017 through July 21, 2020, inclusive;" Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the officers and directors of FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. ("FES"), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company ("FENOC") and Energy Harbor LLC, Energy Harbor Corp., and Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. at all relevant times; and (iii) members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The motion relates to all actions in re FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION. FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. It was established when Ohio Edison acquired Centerior Energy in 1997. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the distribution, transmission, and generation of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H6HW1d at no extra charge.[CC] The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and Plaintiffs Amalgamated Bank, City of Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan, and Wisconsin Laborers' Pension Fund, are: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Mark Solomon, Esq. Hillary B. Stakem, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com marks@rgrdlaw.com hstakem@rgrdlaw.com FIVE BELOW INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Below, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03294 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Five Below Inc. -- https://www.fivebelow.com/ -- is an American chain of specialty discount stores that sells products that cost up to $5, plus a small assortment of products from $6 to $25.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com FLOWERS FOODS: District of Maine Enters Final Judgment in Noll Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine enters Final Judgment in the case, TIMOTHY NOLL, individually and, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS INC, LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC., and CK SALES CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00493-LEW (D. Me.). The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Class Action Settlement and Release dated Oct. 21, 2021, and all terms used therein will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are fully incorporated in the Final Judgment as if set forth fully therein. For the reasons set forth in the Corrected Order Granting Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expenses and Service Awards, the Settlement of the Action on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, along with the Exhibits thereto, proposed by the Parties has been approved by the Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3), all Settlement Class Members who have not timely and validly filed Requests for Exclusion are thus Settlement Class Members who are bound by the Final Judgment, by the Order Approving Class Action Settlement, and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Walker dismisses with prejudice the Action and all Released Claims against each and all Released Parties and without costs to any of the Parties as against the others. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this Final Judgment and the Agreement, and all matters ancillary thereto. Judge Walker, finding that no reason exists for delay, directs the Clerk to enter the Final Judgment forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bth9jp5 from Leagle.com. FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost-Arnett Company. The case is styled as Hindy Spitzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frost-Arnett Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-04573 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frost-Arnett -- https://www.frost-arnett.com/ -- is a debt collection agency that resolves the patient-pay balance of accounts receivable for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FUBU THE COLLECTION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUBU The Collection, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FUBU The Collection, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04605 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FUBU -- https://fubu.com/ -- is an American hip hop apparel company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com FUTURE FINS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Fins, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Future Fins, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Futures Fins -- https://futuresfins.com/ -- is a sporting goods company specialized in manufacturing, surfing, and technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GERON CORP: Delaware Court Stays Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE GERON CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0684-SG (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware stays the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case is at its core quite simple. The Plaintiffs are stockholders of Geron. The Company at present has no products, but is attempting to develop and monetize an anti-cancer drug. It was party to a contract with Janssen Biotech Inc. to assist in moving the drug, imetelstat, through clinical trials and, it was hoped, FDA approval and marketing. Janssen's impetus for entering the contract was based, in part, on results of a second-phase clinical trial (the "Phase Two Trial"). If those results proved disappointing, Janssen was likely to exit its agreement to develop imetelstat, which would be catastrophic for Geron. Per the Complaint, the Phase Two Trial was not successful. The board of directors was made aware of the ongoing failures (profound, but not complete) of the clinical trial. Nonetheless, the directors approved misleading disclosures in 10-K filings and in other public communications with investors, overstating the positive results and understating the risks. Eventually, Janssen exited the agreement. The Plaintiffs bring this claim for breach of fiduciary duty. They allege that the Defendant directors' dissemination of "corporate lies" states a breach of duty claim based on two different theories. The most obvious is a false disclosure claim under the theory of Malone v. Brincat. The Plaintiffs also attempt to plead an oversight claim under the Caremark rubric. II. Discussion The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 23.1. That rule seeks to vindicate the fundamental principle that directors deploy corporate assets, including litigation assets. The Rule, accordingly, requires a demand for legal action on the board. An exception to that requirement is recognized where demand would be futile. Where, as in the present case, demand futility is alleged to rest on the Defendant directors themselves being liable in the litigation, demand may be excused, but the pleading standard is rigorous. A plaintiff must plead specific facts that raise a substantial likelihood that the directors would face liability before Rule 23.1 is satisfied, demand is excused, and the stockholder-plaintiff may proceed to litigate the claims on behalf of the entity. In the present action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant directors intentionally misled investors and stockholders. That is a conclusion, not a factual pleading. The Plaintiffs also plead facts from which they contend I may infer the same conclusion, for purposes of the analysis under Rule 23.1. The Defendants point to different interpretations of the facts pled -- as opposed to the conclusory allegations of the Complaint -- and seek a dismissal despite inferences being drawn in the Plaintiffs' favor. Judge Glasscock notes that a separate securities action, based on the same facts and similar to the Malone theory pled, is well-advanced in a California federal court. That action, which is scheduled for trial in a few months, will establish a number of facts necessary to litigation in the present case. It may obviate the need to address this motion to dismiss, or establish the predicate for successful assertion of demand futility. It may obviate the need for this action altogether. Judge Glasscock has said that the California securities class action most nearly replicates the issues the Plaintiffs promote under the common-law Malone claim. Again, the Plaintiffs also assert a cause of action under In re Caremark Int'l Inc. Deriv. Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), asserting that the Defendant directors ignored "red flags" of the failure of the Phase Two Trial. The Plaintiffs repeat what has become the shibboleth of the "mission critical" nature of the subject of the directors' alleged misfeasance regarding the drug imetelstat. The viability of the drug is critical to Geron, no doubt. But Judge Glasscock confesses to not understanding the allegations of oversight liability. According to the Complaint, the directors were aware that the clinical trial was proceeding poorly. He asks, what could the Defendant directors have done in good faith in the face of this knowledge to avert corporate trauma? The only thing the Plaintiffs point to is to not lie to investors. That, of course, is the Malone claim addressed. Judge Glasscock does not see how the Plaintiffs may shoehorn this into a claim under Caremark. In essence, the Plaintiffs make a single claim -- the Defendant directors knew the clinical trial results were bad, but misled investors into thinking all was well. If such actions were taken in bad faith, they are actionable, despite the rubric applied to the claim. III. Conclusion In any event, as Judge Glasscock stated, the action is most efficiently handled after the imminent federal trial. And a stay will have the added advantage of avoiding potentially inconsistent rulings. Accordingly, he is staying further consideration of the matter. Should circumstances change -- for instance, should a decision in the federal action be delayed -- any party may seek to lift the stay. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is stayed. Any party may seek to lift the stay upon the ultimate resolution of the Securities Action, or as otherwise appropriate. The parties should submit an appropriate form of order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/zhvyfchr from Leagle.com. P. Bradford deLeeuw -- brad@deleeuwlaw.com -- of DELEEUW LAW LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Kip B. Shuman -- kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- of SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER, in San Francisco, California; Rusty E. Glenn, SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER, Denver, Colorado; Brett D. Stecker, of SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER, Ardmore, Pennsylvania; Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsllp.com -- Craig W. Smith, Shane P. Sanders, and Emily R. Bishop, of ROBBINS LLP, in San Diego, California; Richard A. Maniskas , of RM LAW, P.C., in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard DiLaura, Ernesto Elizalde, Jr., and Joseph Oriente. D. McKinley Measley -- mmeasley@morrisnichols.com -- and Sarah P. Kaboly -- skaboly@morrisnichols -- of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Brett De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- John C. Dwyer, of COOLEY LLP, in Palo Alto, California; Ryan E. Blair, of COOLEY LLP, in San Diego, California, Attorneys for Defendants John A. Scarlett, Karin Eastham, V. Bryan Lawlis, Susan M. Molineaux, Robert J. Spiegel, Daniel M. Bradbury, and Hoyoung Huh and Nominal Defendant Geron Corporation. GOOGLE LLC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Scheduled Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5Chicago reports that Illinois residents could soon receive a check as part of a new settlement in a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming the company violated a state privacy law. The lawsuit, which mirrors one recently settled with Facebook that resulted in many residents receiving checks last month, claimed the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by "collecting and storing biometric data of individuals who, while residing in Illinois, appeared in a photograph in the photograph sharing and storage service known as Google Photos, without proper notice and consent." A settlement agreement was reached in the case earlier this year and now, eligible residents can file their claims. Google did not immediately respond to NBC 5's request for comment, but did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement agreement and denied all claims made in the lawsuit. Here's what you need to know if you want to submit a claim: Who is eligible? According to the settlement website, residents are eligible "if, at any time between May 1, 2015 and April 25, 2022, you appeared in a photograph in Google Photos while you were an Illinois resident." Eligible residents can submit a claim now through Sept. 24. All claims must submitted by that date to be eligible for a payment. For those wishing to object or exclude themselves from the settlement, that deadline is Aug. 10. A final approval hearing is slated for Sept. 28. How do I submit my claim? Those looking to submit a claim can do so here. How much money could I get? Those who are eligible will receive a portion of the $100 million settlement fund, after court fees, costs and expenses are deducted. But how much each person will get remains unclear. "No one knows in advance how much each valid claim payment will be until the deadline for submitting claims passes and the Court awards the Fee and Expense Award and Service Payments," the settlement website states. "Each Class Member who submits a valid claim will receive an equal proportionate share of the Net Settlement Fund." Attorneys in the case estimate, based on their experience and similar cases, that each claim could be worth between $200 and $400. When would I get my payment? If the final approval is granted and any potential appeal process is completed, eligible participants could receive their payments within 90 days. The final approval hearing is set for 10:30 a.m. on Sept. 28. Attorneys warn, however, that even if the court approves the settlement, there may still be appeals in the case. "It is always uncertain whether and when appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time," the website states. What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act? Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act prohibits private sector companies and institutions from collecting biometric data from unsuspecting citizens in the state or online, no matter where the business is based. Data cannot be sold, transferred or traded. Unlike any other state, citizens can sue for alleged violations, which has sparked hundreds of David-and-Goliath legal battles against some of the world's most powerful companies. If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by the number of people affected and days involved. No state regulatory agency is involved in enforcement. Since BIPA is an Illinois law, it only applies to state residents. Which other companies are being accused of violating the Illinois law? Most recently, more than one million Illinois Facebook users begin receiving checks following a $650 million settlement in a class-action suit alleging it violated residents' rights by collecting and storing digital scans of their faces without permission. Microsoft, Amazon and Google are among the companies that have also been accused of violations. A class-action lawsuit has also been brought against Snapchat's parent company, accusing the social network of violating the act. [GN] GREENSKY MGMT: Order Partly Granting Wright's Bids to Compel Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXISS WRIGHT, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, GREENSKY, INC., GREENSKY HOLDINGS, LLC, and GREENSKY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-62441-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida overrules the Defendants' Objections to and Appeal from Magistrate's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel. I. Introduction The case is before the Court upon GreenSky's Objections. Plaintiffs Alexiss Wright, Jerrick Buck, and Yvonne Buck (collectively, the "Bucks") filed a Response in Opposition, to which the Defendants filed a Reply. Judge Bloom has carefully considered the Objections, the record in the case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. II. Background On July 17, 2020, Wright initiated the class action against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Defendants thereafter removed the case to the Court, alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On Dec. 16, 2020, Wright filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"), which added the Bucks and Maria C. Poza as named Plaintiff. The Complaint asserts the following three counts against Defendants: Count I — Violations of Florida's Loan Broker Law ("FLBL") (Fla. Stat. Section 687.14, et seq.); Count II - Violations of Florida's Credit Service Organizations Act ("CSOA") (Fla. Stat. Section 817.7001, et seq.); and Count III - Injunctive Relief. According to the Complaint, the Defendants are financial technology companies that allow various types of merchants to apply for point-of-sale loans on behalf of their customers through the Defendants' mobile application that streamlines the entire lending process. The Defendants fund these loans through partnerships with lending institutions that serve as the lenders. They orchestrate the loan origination process from the initial loan application through funding, and after brokering the loan, they act as the loan servicer. In July 2016, the Bucks purchased a solar system financed by a $25,000 Greensky loan. Greensky took a merchant fee of approximately 13% of the principal that was not disclosed to the Bucks. The Bucks repaid the loan entirely within the first year and unknowingly paid some or all of the undisclosed merchant fee. In June 2016, Wright purchased an air-conditioning system financed by a $9,522 Greensky loan. Greensky took a merchant fee of approximately 16% of the principal that was not disclosed to Wright. Wright repaid the loan in late 2018 and unknowingly paid some or all of the undisclosed merchant fee. In November 2016, Poza contracted with Paradise Exteriors to purchase and install storm shutters, which were financed by a Greensky loan. Poza unknowingly paid some or all of Greensky's merchant fee of approximately 6.75% of the principal. The claims asserted in the Complaint are premised on the allegation that Defendants concealed the nature and amount of the merchant fees charged to consumers and failed to comply with loan broker disclosure requirements, in violation of the FLBL. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants acted as a credit service organization ("CSO") without a surety bond, accepted valuable consideration for referring customers to lenders who were offering substantially the same loan terms to the general public, and made false or misleading statements in violation of the CSOA. On June 14, 2021, the Court directed the Defendants and Poza to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in Poza's loan documents. However, the loan documents for the remaining named Plaintiffs Wright and the Bucks (collectively, "Plaintiffs") do not have a similar arbitration provision. On Dec. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Strike Defendants Untimely Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery Requests and to Compel Request for Production of Documents ("RFPD Motion"). On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Complete Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants ("Interrogatory Motion"). Magistrate Judge Alicia Valle thereafter held a hearing on the two Motions. Following a two-hour hearing, Magistrate Judge Valle granted in part and denied in part the RFPD Motion and the Interrogatory Motion. The Defendants now appeal Magistrate Judge Valle's Order and raise several arguments. First, they argue that Magistrate Judge Valle ignored the voluminous case law under Local Rule 26.1(g) and erroneously held that the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was timely. They specifically contend that (1) the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was untimely; (2) Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in excusing the Plaintiffs' untimeliness; and (3) the merits of the RFPD Motion lack any legal or factual basis. In the alternative, the Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in ruling on issues that the Plaintiffs did not assert in the RFPD Motion and, therefore, were not before Magistrate Judge Valle. More specifically, they argue that Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in ruling on the temporal scope of the RFPDs, which the Plaintiffs did not raise in the RFPD Motion. The Defendants' argument on this matter rests on the following contentions: (1) because the Plaintiffs never complained about the Defendants' objections to the temporal scope in the RFPD Motion, Magistrate Judge Valle erred in considering the unbriefed issue; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to raise the temporal scope issue in the RFPD Motion, thereby waiving it for purposes of determining the timeframe governing the search for production of documents; (3) because the Plaintiffs cannot represent a class beyond October 2016, there is no basis for a six-year discovery period; and (4) regardless, there is no basis to impose a six-year discovery period given the current status of the case. Further, the Defendants submit that Magistrate Judge Valle ruled on several additional unbriefed issues. They argue that the RFPD Motion did not raise concerns regarding: (1) the production of Greensky's lender documents related to putative class members; (2) the identification of and information concerning putative class members; and (3) boilerplate objections. Lastly, the Defendants appeal Magistrate Judge Valle's Order on the Interrogatory Motion for similar reasons and because one particular interrogatory regarding incentive payments is impertinent to the Plaintiffs' core theory of the case. The Plaintiffs respond by arguing that Magistrate Judge Valle properly exercised her discretion and take the contrary position to each of the arguments raised. They submit that (1) Magistrate Judge Valle properly exercised her discretion in finding that the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was timely; (2) Magistrate Judge Valle appropriately rejected Defendants' attempt to restrict discovery to a 102-day period in 2016; (3) both sides had a fair opportunity to present arguments on the temporal scope issue before Magistrate Judge Valle; (4) the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion by Magistrate Judge Valle; (5) the Defendants will not be unduly burdened by Magistrate Judge Valle's ruling; (6) the Defendants' proportionality arguments identify no clear error; (7) Magistrate Judge Valle properly exercised her discretion in compelling production of loan data; (8) Magistrate Judge Valle did not clearly err by compelling Defendants to produce their agreements with lending partners; (9) Magistrate Judge Valle properly struck Defendants' boilerplate objections; and (10) Magistrate Judge Valle properly compelled the production of information regarding incentive payments. III. Discussion A. Timeliness and Merits of the RFPD Motion First, the Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in addressing the timeliness and the merits of the RFPD Motion. They submit that (1) the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was untimely; (2) Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in excusing the Plaintiffs' untimeliness; and (3) the merits of the RFPD Motion lack any legal or factual basis. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge Valle properly exercised her discretion. Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. She determines that Magistrate Judge Valle correctly noted that any delay on the Plaintiffs' part in filing the RFPD Motion was in part due to the Plaintiffs' attempt to confer and resolve discovery matters by repeatedly contacting the Defendants' counsel, rather than having the Court unnecessarily intervene and issue a discovery order. Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the case was administratively closed from June 14, 2021, to Aug. 17, 2021. Thus, even if the RFPD Motion could be considered untimely, there was good cause for the delay. Next, the Defendants argue that because the Court compelled Poza to arbitration and denied the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, the RFPD Motion lacks any legal or factual basis -- an argument that the Defendants develop further in the latter part of their Objections. Because the Defendants develop the argument further in the latter part of their Objections, Judge Bloom analyzes their objection to Magistrate Judge Valle's ruling on merits of the RFPD Motion. As a final note, to the extent that the Defendants argue in a footnote, and again in the Reply, that a motion to strike is reserved for pleadings, not discovery responses, Judge Bloom agrees. She says, a motion to strike is reserved for pleadings, not discovery responses or objections to discovery requests. However, it appears that Magistrate Judge Valle did not grant the Plaintiffs' request to strike the objections. Rather, Magistrate Judge Valle effectively overruled the objections, and Judge Bloom affirms Magistrate Judge Valle's overruling of the Defendants' objections for the reasons that follow. To the extent that it must, she makes clear that the Plaintiffs' request to strike Defendants' objections is denied as procedurally improper. Judge Bloom considers the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion only to the extent that it seeks to compel the Defendants' response. B. Temporal Scope of Discovery The Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in addressing the temporal scope of discovery by allowing the timeframe of the RFPDs to extend from July 17, 2016, to the present. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge Valle appropriately rejected the Defendants' attempt to restrict discovery to a 102-day period in 2016. Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. First, it is evident that the RFPD Motion clearly raised the temporal scope issue. Second, the Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery responses to determine whether their Motion for Class Certification should include loans after Oct. 26, 2016. Third, Magistrate Judge Valle's decision not to follow a non-binding out-of-circuit decision is not clear error that warrants reversal. Next, Judge Bloom is not persuaded that the Defendants would be prejudiced. Lastly, the Defendants have not provided any discovery pertaining to the time period after Oct. 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs have argued that discovery is necessary for that time period, and the Court has already determined that class certification discovery into the time period is necessary based on the needs of the case. In sum, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing. Magistrate Judge Valle properly determined the temporal scope of the RFPDs to extend from July 17, 2016, to the present. C. Production of Greensky's Lender Documents The Defendants argue that that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in ordering the Defendants to produce all agreements with program lenders. They contend that the production of lender agreements for individuals who are not presently before the Court was not raised in the RFPD Motion. They also submit that Magistrate Judge Valle "rewrote" the Court's Scheduling Order requiring the bifurcation of discovery by compelling discovery of lender documents. The Plaintiffs respond that the issue was raised in the RFPD Motion. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Valle did not rewrite the Court's Scheduling Order and that the lender documents are relevant to class certification. Judge Bloom again agrees with the Plaintiffs. She reiterates that in the RFPD Motion, the Plaintiffs expressly sought "(vi) the agreements between GreenSky and lenders for the loans at issue." Therefore, the Plaintiffs did raise the issue in the RFPD Motion, and the Defendants did have an opportunity to brief the issue. Further, the information is plainly relevant to the issue of class certification as the lender documents may reveal the Defendants' role on behalf of program lenders in charging undisclosed, unlawful fees with respect to all of Defendants' loans and establish the existence of common questions for a certifiable class. Thus, because the discovery sought is pertinent to class certification, Magistrate Judge Valle did not disturb the bifurcation of discovery in the Court's Scheduling Order. In sum, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing. Magistrate Judge Valle properly required the production of the Defendants' lender documents. D. Identification and Information of Putative Class Members The Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in ordering them to produce all documents reflecting the fees received in connection with any Greensky loans and, separately, documents showing various identification information for putative class members. They argue that discovery regarding such information was not briefed. The Plaintiffs reiterate their previous arguments and contend that each of the Defendants' arguments are unavailing. Plaintiffs further argue that Magistrate Judge Valle did not compel the production of identification information and previously determined that the parties could re-visit the issue post-class certification. Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. First, with regard to identification information, it is apparent that Magistrate Judge Valle did not compel the production of identification information until after class certification. Next, with respect to documents reflecting the fees received in connection with any Greensky loans, she reiterates that the Plaintiffs raised the issue in the RFPD Motion, and the Defendants did have an opportunity to brief the issue. Further, a non-binding decision from the Western District of Missouri is not a basis to find clear error. Finally, because the discovery sought is pertinent to class certification, Magistrate Judge Valle did not disturb the bifurcation of discovery in the Court's Scheduling Order. In sum, Magistrate Judge Valle properly required the production of documents reflecting the fees received in connection with any Greensky loans and properly denied as moot the production of documents showing various types of identification information for putative class members. E. Boilerplate Objections The Defendants also argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in ruling on boilerplate objections. They contend that the Plaintiffs never raised arguments regarding boilerplate objections and Magistrate Judge Valle did not identify the particular objections that she was ruling on. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge Valle was ruling on the Defendants' general overbreadth and burden objections throughout the Defendants' responses to the RFPDs. Judge Bloom finds that it is apparent that Magistrate Judge Valle was instructing the Defendants to revise their generalized objections that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, whether they objected to the boilerplate nature of the objections is immaterial. The Court is unaware of, and the Defendants fail to cite to, any legal authority indicating that a court cannot sua sponte reject boilerplate objections. F. Interrogatory Motion Lastly, the Defendants repeat their arguments regarding the merits of the RFPD Motion in arguing that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in allowing discovery beyond October 26, 2016 for the Interrogatory Motion. They further submit that the interrogatory concerning incentive fees paid by the Defendants' bank partners to Defendants is not relevant to Plaintiffs' theory of the case. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge Valle noted that the Complaint alleges that the incentive fees are ultimately passed down to the customer. Therefore, the incentive fees are pertinent to the Plaintiffs' theory of the case. Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. With regard to the temporal scope argument, the Court already addressed the merits of the Defendants' arguments in its Order denying the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judge Bloom reiterates that the Court permitted further class certification discovery, including class certification discovery for the time period in question. With regard to the Defendants' arguments about the incentive fees, she similarly determines that the incentive fees are part of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' theory of the case. As such, the Defendants' arguments regarding the Interrogatory Motion are unavailing. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Bloom affirms Magistrate Judge Valle's Order, and overrules the Defendants' Objections. The Defendants will provide the Plaintiffs all discovery responses no later than June 17, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33ue6c8v from Leagle.com. GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Plavin Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN PLAVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-1462 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Compel. I. Background The lawsuit is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons who were enrolled in Group Health Inc.'s ("GHI") Comprehensive Benefit Plan for the employees and retirees of the City of New York at any time from 2011 to 2015. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of GHI Plan members and assert a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices in which GHI allegedly engaged which falsely described the Plan as providing extensive coverage for services by non-participating providers and falsely representing that reimbursements rates for most out-of-network services would be far less than the actual cost of the service so that the out-of-network coverage promised by GHI was, as has been alleged by the Plaintiffs, "functionally illusory." The Plaintiffs' Complaint further alleges numerous other misrepresentations and misleading statements by GHI, including deceptive marketing of the GHI Plan, misrepresentations as to the levels of reimbursement for out-of-network coverage, fraudulent promises as to "catastrophic coverage", misrepresentations regarding the Enhanced OON Rider and the issuance of other deceptive marketing materials and benefit descriptions. The Plaintiffs' Complaint presents a claim of unjust enrichment on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the putative class, a claim of deceptive acts and business practices in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349, a claim of false advertising in violation of New York General Business Law Section 350, and a claim of misrepresentation in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 4226. Presently before the Court are discovery disputes arising out of GHI's request for production of documents, specifically requests Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 and the Plaintiffs' objections thereto. Also before the Court are GHI's second set of interrogatories and the Plaintiffs' objections to interrogatories numbers 10 and 11. GHI's requests for production in Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 are as follows: 56. All Documents and Communications sent by You or on Your behalf, including from Your counsel, to any Person or group of Persons in order to Solicit participation in this Lawsuit either as a named plaintiff, class representative or potential class member. 57. All Documents and Communications that You or Your counsel received in response to the Solicitations described in Request No. 56. 58. All Documents and Communications Concerning the materials described in Requests Nos. 56 and 57, including but not limited to, and by way of example only, distribution lists, requests for distribution lists and Documents requesting permission to post or distribute the Solicitations described in Request No. 56. The Plaintiffs object to these three requests for production, asserting with respect to each that the request is "vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome." Plaintiffs further state that the terms "solicit" and "solicitations" are vague and ambiguous and that the requests seek information or documents that are protected from discovery "by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product privilege, the common-interest privilege, spousal privilege, or other applicable privilege." They additionally assert the lack of relevancy of the requested information as it relates to the issues in the case and assert that the requests are "not proportional to the needs of the case." With respect to GHI's second set of interrogatories, Paragraphs 10 and 11 are at issue by virtue of the Plaintiffs' objections. These Interrogatories state: 10. Identify all Persons You or Your counsel Solicited, or attempted to Solicit, to join this Lawsuit either as a plaintiff, class representative or potential class member and describe in detail the nature of those interactions. 11. Identify all Persons with whom Your counsel discussed this Lawsuit and describe the contents of those discussions including, by way of example only, any factual information such Persons provided that supports or refutes Your allegations, or the reasons such Persons did not become a named plaintiff or class representative. The Plaintiffs' objections to these interrogatories assert that the information sought by GHI is neither relevant to any of the issues in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. They claim that both interrogatories seek information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product privilege. They further object to the use by GHI of the term "solicit" because that term is "vague" and "because it calls for the Plaintiffs to identify all Persons their counsel 'attempted to solicit', whatever that means." The counsel for the parties then filed a sequential series of letters to the Court each of which further asserted the validity of their position and offered rebuttal of opposing the counsel's letters. Among other things, GHI's counsel's letter of April 5, 2022 characterizes its requests for documents and interrogatories as seeking "documents and communications concerning the solicitation of the Plaintiffs or putative class members for the lawsuit, including those materials sent, received or maintained solely by Plaintiffs' counsel." In response to the letter of GHI's counsel, counsel for the Plaintiffs by letter dated April 6, 2022 informed the Court that "the parties have not met and conferred and no ripe dispute exists for the Court's consideration." By letter dated May 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that, after meeting and conferring, "the parties were able to resolve all issues except the following GHI demands: (1) the identity of and communications with any individuals who contacted Plaintiffs' counsel for legal advice regarding potential representation in the lawsuit; and (2) GHI's interrogatory request for a narrative from Plaintiffs' counsel regarding communications with prospective clients, namely the reasons such persons did not become a named plaintiff or class representative." On May 9, 2022, the Court issued an Order providing notice to the parties that the Court would construe GHI's first letter as a Motion to Compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and affording the parties one week to file any supplementations to their positions set forth in the letters. Neither party filed any additional supplementation. II. Analysis Preliminarily, Judge Mariani notes that neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant has requested an evidentiary hearing with respect to the issues raised in their correspondence submitted to the Court. Thus, when the Plaintiffs' counsel represents to the Court that it can confirm to the Court and GHI that "any putative class members who contacted counsel about the possibility of joining the lawsuit as named plaintiffs sought legal advice," absent a request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue, the Court assumes that the Plaintiffs' counsel has fulfilled its ethical responsibility to provide candor to the Court and has accurately stated that those members of the putative class who contacted counsel sought legal advice about the possibility of their joining in the action. Likewise, the Plaintiffs' counsel has denied that it sent any questionnaires, flatly stating that the "Plaintiffs' counsel didn't send any questionnaires. Judge Mariani opines that it isn't a case involving factual responses to a questionnaire with no request for legal representation. There was nothing even remotely resembling a questionnaire, and communications that the Plaintiffs' counsel received from prospective clients sought legal advice and are privileged." Because, on the facts presented to the Court, it appears that there was no document that, in the words of the Plaintiffs' counsel, "even remotely resembled a questionnaire", the decisions in Morisky v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 191 F.R.D. 419 (D.N.J. 2000) and Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2006 WL 3420591, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2006) have limited application in the present case. As to the specific issues remaining in dispute between the parties as identified in the Plaintiffs' counsel's letter of May 4, 2022, in accordance with the decisions cited therein which consistently hold that the attorney-client privilege does not protect against disclosing clients' identities, the identities of the Plaintiffs' clients and prospective clients must be disclosed to GHI. Further, because the attorney-client privilege only protects disclosure of communications but does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts, GHI is not entitled to the communications engaged in by the Plaintiffs' counsel with any individuals who contacted the Plaintiffs' counsel for legal advice regarding potential representation in the lawsuit but purely factual information obtained from such communications is discoverable from the party/client through interrogatories and the normal processes of discovery. Nonetheless, and in any case, such discovery, if engaged in, must be undertaken so as to protect against the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of the Plaintiffs' counsel or other representative concerning the litigation. III. Conclusion For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth. A separate Order will be issued. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ed4r5pw from Leagle.com. HABITUAL INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habitual, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Habitual, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04567 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Habitual -- https://habitual.com/ -- offers clothes for tween girls and little fashionista from girls swimwear to dresses & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HAIDER FAMILY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haider Family Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Haider Family Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04568 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Haider Family LLC is located in Elizabethtown, Kentucky and is part of the Lessors of Real Estate Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HALMEN LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halmen, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Halmen, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04661 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Halmen, LLC is located in Fredericksburg, Virginia and is part of the Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Student's Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student A, et al., v. Harvard University, Case No. 1:20-cv-10968 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an Scheduling Order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs motion for class October 3, 2022 certification due by: -- The Defendants response to October 24, 2022 Plaintiffs motion for class certification due by: -- All final and supplemental November 4, 2022 requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission must be served by: -- The Plaintiffs reply in support November 7, 2022 of their motion for class certification due by: -- Close of fact discovery on: January 9, 2023 -- Expert disclosures on January 18, 2023 issues for which any party bears the burden of proof served by: -- Remaining expert disclosures February 22, 2023 and rebuttal reports served by: -- Close of expert discovery on: March 31, 2023 -- Summary judgment motions are May 1, 2023 due on and shall not be filed prior to: -- Oppositions to summary May 22, 2023 judgment motions due: -- Replies in support of June 5, 2023 summary judgment motions due: Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE LEVINS AND WILLIAM LEVINS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:17-cv-00928-CPO-MJS (), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23. HRRG is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aEj1pE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel. & Fax: (201) 273-7117 HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Amended Phase I Case Mngt, Sched Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an amended phase one case management and scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for providing mandatory June 21, 2022 initial disclosures: -- Deadline for moving to join a July 21, 2022 party or amend the pleadings: -- Deadline for disclosing expert November 21, 2022 reports (incorporating the parties' agreement re: deposition dates) Plaintiff: January 30, 2023 Defendant: March 2, 2023 Rebuttal: -- Deadline for completing discovery March 30, 2023 and filing motions to compel: -- Deadline for moving for class April 20, 2023 certification: Heartland Payment is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NZY2fA at no extra charge.[CC] HENKEL CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Goldstein Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldstein v. Henkel Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Alvin W. Thompson Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures: May 20, 2022 -- Deadline to amend pleadings August 26, 2022 and join parties: -- Non-expert discovery deadline, May 26, 2023 including fact witness depositions: -- Deadline to move for class May 26, 2023 certification and submit certification expert report: -- Defendants' opposition to July 25, 2023 motion for class certification and deadline to submit rebuttal to certification expert report: -- The plaintiffs' reply in further August 8, 2023 support of class certification: Henkel is a German multinational chemical and consumer goods company headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Forsyth Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company disclosed in its current Form 10-K Report for fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that its subsidiaries HP, Inc. and HPE are facing case captioned "Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)." In August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction (WFR) plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination. The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or after December 2014. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR packages. In September 2017, the court denied the partial motion to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs. The court stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these individuals, and administratively closed the case. A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time. A settlement was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the company. In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to their release agreements. In December 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the opt-in plaintiffs, 35 of whom were employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the company, and for which the company was liable. In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary certification of the collective action, which Defendants opposed. In April 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification and lifted the previously imposed stay of the action. In November 2021, notice was sent to putative members of the ADEA collectives regarding participation in the case. In February 2022, the notice period closed. DXC is a global IT services provider formed by the merger of Computer Sciences Corporation and Enterprise Services business of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Jarrell Suit Over Concealed Seat Belt Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRIS JARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, and KIA MOTORS MEXICO, S.A. de C.V., Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00990-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud by concealment or omission, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unfair, misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in failing to disclose the defect of Hyundai vehicles' seat belt pretensioners. The seat belt pretensioners could explode, projecting metal fragments through the vehicle which could strike and injure the vehicle's occupants. Despite having knowledge of the exploding seat belt pretensioners, Hyundai concealed this information, delayed issuing a recall, and still to this day has not sent notification letters to owners of the defective vehicles. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known of the safety defect in the seat belts, they would not have purchased or leased those vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them, says the suit. Hyundai Motor America Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company, headquartered in Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai Motor Company is an automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC is an automobile company headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Kia Motors Mexico, S.A. de C.V. is an automobile company based in Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Sarah J. Schultz, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com INJURED WORKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Email Account Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- HIPAA Journal reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the law firm Morgan & Morgan against Injured Workers Pharmacy (IWP) over a breach of the personal information of 75,771 customers. IWP is an Andover, MA-based pharmacy that serves employees who were injured at work and receive workers' compensation benefits. On May 11, 2021, IWP discovered several employee email accounts had been accessed by an unauthorized individual, and those email accounts contained sensitive information such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. The first email accounts were compromised in January 2021, which allowed unauthorized access to the information in the accounts for 4 months before the breach was detected and the accounts were secured. Affected individuals were offered complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for 24 months. Plaintiffs Alexsis Webb and Marsclette Charley allege IWP failed to implement appropriate data security safeguards to ensure the privacy of their personal information and that of the class members, had not followed industry security best practices and had not provided security awareness training to the workforce. IWP failed to issue notification letters about the breach until February 2022, 9 months after the breach was detected. The lawsuit alleges negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract and fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs claim they face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud due to the exposure of their sensitive data to cybercriminals and have had to spend time and money protecting themselves against identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit seeks class action status, a jury trial, damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and legal costs. IWP is no stranger to legal action. In 2020, IWP agreed to settle a case with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to resolve allegations the company played a role in shipping thousands of illegitimate opioid painkiller prescriptions across the United States between 2006 and 2012. The case was settled for $11 million. [GN] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.: Shareholders who purchased shares of IIPR during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27905&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: May 7, 2020 to April 13, 2022 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innovative Industrial Properties' focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a REIT; (2) that the true values of the Company's properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (3) there are existential issues in its top customers; (4) as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and the Company would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) 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. DEADLINE: June 24, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27905&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of IIPR during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 24, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ securities between March 20, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 1, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and business." It further claimed that the Company reported "[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party round-tripping." On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.71, or 9%, to close at $7.15 per share on May 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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: (1) that IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being available through major cloud providers; (4) that a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping transactions with related parties; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] IRONNET INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) between September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important June 21, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased IronNet securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IronNet class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5641 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 21, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IronNet had materially overstated its business and financial prospects; (2) IronNet was unable to predict the timing of significant customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (3) IronNet had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate, complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false, misleading, and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the IronNet class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5641 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned STJEPAN NOVOSELAC, et al., v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al.,Case No. 5:21-cv-08654-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that: 1. The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted with leave to amend on the basis that all claims against Moving Parties appear to be time-barred and Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing tolling of the applicable limitations periods; and 2. Any amended complaint shall be filed by June 24, 2022. Leave to amend is limited to facts relating to statute of limitations and tolling. The Plaintiffs may not add parties or claims without express leave of the Court. The Court said, "It appears on the face of the complaint and from judicially noticeable filings in the Lesnik actions that Plaintiffs' claims against Moving Parties are time-barred, even assuming that American Pipe tolling and equitable tolling under California law apply in this case. The Court will grant Moving Parties' motion to dismiss on this basis. While Moving Parties urge the Court to grant the motion without leave to amend, the Court finds that leave to amend is warranted under the standard set forth in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) and Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). If they choose to amend, Plaintiffs must in essence draw a road map explaining how tolling saves their otherwise time-barred claims against Moving Parties." A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXimOA at no extra charge.[CC] ISS FACILITY: Mendoza Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NORMA MORALES MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; ISS SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 to 100 inclusive, Case No. 22CV010707, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03256 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures, failure to timely pay earned wages, failure to provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks, and unfair and unlawful business practices. ISS Facility Services, Inc. is a facility management company, doing business in California. ISS Services of California is a facility management company, doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John L. Barber, Esq. Julie W. O'Dell, Esq. Rochelle C. Rotea, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 545-9200 Facsimile: (714) 850-1030 E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com Julie.ODell@lewisbrisbois.com Rochelle.Rotea@lewisbrisbois.com JOHN C. HEATH: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath, Attorney At Law PC, et al. The case is styled as Jermaine Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John C. Heath, Attorney At Law PC doing business as: Lexington Law, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-03768 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. John C. Heath, Attorney At Law PC doing business as Lexington Law -- https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/ -- is a credit repair firm and is one of the most well-known credit repair companies and has been serving clients since 2004.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com KALAHARI SNACKS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalahari Snacks, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kalahari Snacks, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04569 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kalahari Snacks -- https://eatbiltong.com/ -- offers biltong and crisps, the air dried beef jerky alternative.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LA MARIA PIZZERIA: Martinez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Maria Pizzeria Corp., et al. The case is styled as David Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Maria Pizzeria Corp., 1455 Nepperhan Rest Corp. doing business as: Bella Rosa Pizzeria, Ali Ozturk, Albert Tranquillo also known as: Ally, Laurie Tranquillo, Case No. 1:22-cv-04578 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. La Maria Pizzeria Corp. doing business as Bella Rosa Pizzeria -- https://www.bellarosapizzeria.com/ -- is a pizza restaurant in Yonkers, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliseo Cabrera, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Ave., Ste. 1512 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (510) 734-9579 Email: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com LEGAL SEA: Labby Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers & Bartenders ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADISON LABBY and SARAH RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGAL SEA FOODS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and LSFW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10853 (D. Mass., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law. Plaintiff Labby worked for the Defendants at the Legal Sea Foods restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts as a server from approximately July 2019 to December 2019. Plaintiff Ryan worked for the Defendants at the Legal Sea Foods restaurant in Burlington, Massachusetts as both a server and bartender from approximately August 2018 to January 2021. Legal Sea Foods Restaurant Group, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts. LSFW, LLC is a limited liability company that maintains its principal place of business located in Foxboro, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C. 1350 Main Street, Suite 302 Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (877) 443-0999 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com - and – Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com whogg@hftrialfirm.com - and – Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com LLR INC: Ponkey Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Arbitration Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Jessica Ponkey filed an appeal from a court ruling compelling the parties to arbitration in the lawsuit entitled JESSICA PONKEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE, LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM, an individual; DEANNE S. BRADY a/k/a DEANNE STIDHAM, an individual; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00518-AB-SHK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to the complaint filed on March 24, 2021, LuLaRoe is an unlawful, fraudulent pyramid scheme which preys on stay-at-home mothers, promising them they can generate substantial income while still being able to spend time at home with their families. LuLaRoe recruits these mothers to become "consultants." When joining, these recruited "consultants" believe that they will be able to sell LuLaRoe's various clothing items to a retail market. LuLaRoe's unlawful conduct has affected tens of thousands of consultants all across the U.S. and has been recognized by governmental agencies as an illegal scheme, asserts the complaint. Given Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, as well as breaches of contract, Plaintiff is further bringing breach of contract, California Corporations Code violation, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against Defendants. On June 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration which Judge Andre Birotte Jr. granted on August 5, 2021. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Ponkey v. LLR, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55532, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 31, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Jessica Ponkey Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 7, 2022; -- Appellant Jessica Ponkey opening brief is due on July 26, 2022; -- Appellees Deanne S. Brady, Does, LLR, Inc., Lennon Leasing, LLC, LuLaRoe, LLC and Mark A. Stidham answering brief is due on August 25, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JESSICA PONKEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 575 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 556-1700 Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE, LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM; and DEANNE S. BRADY, AKA Deanne Stidham, are represented by: Elizabeth Martori Weldon, Esq. Steven Graham, Esq. Jing Hua, Esq. William S. O'Hare, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 427-7000 LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc. ("LMP" or the "Company) (NASDAQ: LMPX) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired LMP securities between June 29, 2021 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lmpx. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lmpx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Clients Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in LMP you have until July 26, 2022, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] MAZIE SLATER: Martino Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff ANTHONY MARTINO is taking an appeal from a court ruling dismissing his lawsuit entitled Anthony Martino, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. David Mazie, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-21-cv-20056, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit, removed from New Jersey Superior Court to the New Jersey District Court on November 17, 2021, demands a recalculation of the Olmesartan Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) settlement contingency fees according to New Jersey State Court Rules, in particular, Rule 1:21-7(i), and a refund of excess fees paid to the Defendants. Martino alleges the Defendants' violation of New Jersey State Court Rules because of the receipt of contingency fees from the MDL settlement program, which Martino claims were greater than allowed by the Rule. The Olmesartan Multi-District Litigation, which began in April 2015, concerned whether ingestion of the hypertensive Olmesartan caused gastro-intestinal injury that mimicked celiac disease. On December 20, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims in the Plaintiff's complaint, which Judge Robert B. Kugler granted on May 6, 2022. The Court also made moot a cross-motion for partial summary judgment filed by the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned Anthony Martino v. David Mazie, et al., Case No. 22-2019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 27, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY MARTINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Robert H. Solomon, Esq. NAGEL RICE 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: rsolomon@nagelrice.com Defendants-Appellees DAVID MAZIE, et al., are represented by: Adam M. Slater, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 207 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: aslater@mskf.net META PLATFORMS: Illinois Residents Set to Receive Settlement Checks ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5Chicago reports that 1.4 million people in Illinois stand to receive a check in the mail from Facebook as part of a seven-year, $650 million Class Action Lawsuit against the company. In the suit, Class Members allege the company broke the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting and storing biometric data -- also known as physical characteristics -- of users without their consent, through things like facial recognition technology. Facebook users might more commonly know this as "Tag Suggestions" notifications. Checks in the amount of $397 to more started getting mailed out May 9, according to the settlement administrator, and it will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and processing the electronic payments. If you haven't received a check yet, but believe you are due one, here's what to know. I'm an Illinois Facebook User. Am I Part of the Class Action Lawsuit? According to the settlement website, Facebook's records were used to identify certain Class Members. Those people should have received notice through email or on Facebook. You might have gotten a notice if you are a current or former Facebook user in Illinois who uploaded a photograph of yourself or were "tagged" in a photograph on Facebook after June 7, 2011. If photographs of you that were uploaded to Facebook after June 7, 2011 did not result in the creation of a face template while you lived in Illinois, you were not notified to take part in the lawsuit. Not everybody in Illinois who uses Facebook is included, and only Class Action Members will receive a payout from the lawsuit. Is There a Way I Can Check to See if I Am Part of the Lawsuit, and if I Will Get a Payout? According to the settlement website, "Facebook users located in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011" are eligible for a payout. To have filed a valid claim under the Settlement, you must have lived in the State of Illinois for a period of at least 183 days (6 months). The deadline to file a claim form was November 23, 2020. If you did not file a claim by that date -- even if you are an Illinois Facebook user, and meet the above above criteria—you are not a Class Action Member, and you will not receive a payout. If you don't remember, whether or not you filed out a claim form, here's who to contact: Settlement Administrator: 1-844-799-2417 Edelson PC, lawyer appointment to the case: 1-866-354-3015 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lawyer appointed to the case: 1-800-449-4900 Labaton Sucharow LLP, lawyer appointed to the case: 1-888-219-6877 How Much Are the Checks For? According to the settlement website, final checks are in the amount of $397. Previously, the settlement administrator stated that checks would be between $200-$400. A document titled "Order re: Final Approval, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, And Incentive Awards" dated Feb. 26, 2021, states that "it is one the largest settlements ever for a privacy violation, and it will put at least $345 into the hands of every class member interested in being compensated." When Will I Receive My Check? Payments started getting mailed out to members on May 9, 2022. "It will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and processing the electronic payments," the settlement website states. "If you are expecting a payment but haven't yet received it, we ask that you wait until mid-June before making an inquiry." What the Illinois Facebook Lawsuit Says, and How Facebook Responded According to the Settlement Administrator, "Facebook users in Illinois sued Facebook claiming that its "Tag Suggestions" feature and other features involving facial recognition technology, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. That law, passed in 2008, says companies are not allowed to collect, store, or give out "biometric data," which includes things like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be destroyed This case alleges that Facebook specifically broke the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial recognition technology to create face templates that can be used to identify users in photos without the proper notice and consent. Facebook denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. Facebook changed its technology in 2019, replacing the tool with a broader facial recognition setting, which was turned off by default. The website announced it would shut down its recognition software entirely in 2021.[GN] METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Greene Sues Over Gang Foremen's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE GREENE, LAMELL ARMOR and FABIAN SAUGAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, METRO-NORTH RAILROAD, STATEN ISLAND RAILWAY, MTA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, MTA REGIONAL BUS OPERATIONS, MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS, and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03300 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Jamie Greene has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since 2001, first as a machinist and then as a gang foreman. Lamell Armor has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since 2009, first as an electrician and then as a gang foreman. Fabian Saugar has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since 1999, first as a machinist and then as a gang foreman. Metropolitan Transit Authority is a public benefit corporation chartered by the New York State Legislature under the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Long Island Railroad is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates a commuter rail system running from Manhattan to the eastern tip of Suffolk County on Long Island, New York. Metro-North Railroad is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates a commuter rail system running between Manhattan and northern New York City suburbs in New York and Connecticut. Staten Island Railway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates a rapid transit line in Staten Island, New York. MTA Construction and Development is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which manages construction and development of major transportation capital projects in the New York City metropolitan area. MTA Regional Bus Operations is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates surface transit in New York, New York. MTA Bridges and Tunnels is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates toll bridges and tunnels in the New York City metropolitan area. New York City Transit Authority is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates public transportation, including subways and bus services, in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Scimone, Esq. Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and – Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Suite 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 - and – Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq. Joshua Goodbaum, Esq. GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C. 405 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 777-4425 MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Cir. Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Leffel, Esq., and Jessica Walker, Esq., of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Seventh Circuit rejected emotional distress and other intangible injuries as a basis for Article III standing in a class action seeking statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Nos. 19-2993 & 19-3109, 2022 WL 986441 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022), relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is just the latest in a growing number of appellate court decisions addressing Article III standing in class actions based on statutory damages claims. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Renetrice Pierre accumulated and defaulted on a credit card account. Years later, in 2015, defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Midland Credit) sent Pierre a letter seeking payment of the debt in its role as a collector for Midland Funding -- which had purchased Pierre's debt. The letter stated she was approved for a discount program that would save her money, and included an expiration date of 30 days. The debt was so old that the statute of limitations had run -- Midland Credit, therefore, could ask for payment but could not sue for payment. Its letter concluded, "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, we will not report it to any credit reporting agency, and payment or non-payment of this debt will not affect your credit score." Pierre reacted to the letter with surprise, confusion, and concern, yet she did not pay any of the debt or agree to pay any of the debt. She alleged she suffered emotional distress and confusion based on the letter and that she had to contact Midland Credit to contest the debt collection and hire a lawyer. She sued Midland Credit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) on behalf of a class of Illinois residents who received similar letters. The Northern District of Illinois certified the class and entered summary judgment for the class, and a jury awarded more than $350,000 in damages. The Majority Determined Pierre Failed to Establish Article III Standing Addressing the concreteness requirement of Article III standing, the Seventh Circuit noted that recent decisions had hinted "the mere 'risk of real harm' could concretely injure plaintiffs seeking money damages." However, the Seventh Circuit held that under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), a risk of harm can only serve as a concrete injury for forward-looking, injunctive relief, and "[a] plaintiff seeking money damages has standing to sue in federal court only for harms that have in fact materialized." Pierre's asserted harm, that the letter she received created a risk that she might make a payment on a time-barred debt, or restart the limitations period by either paying or promising to pay, represents only a risk of future harm, not any actual, experienced harm such as making a payment. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Pierre had therefore not established standing. Consistent with prior decisions, the Seventh Circuit also held that calling to dispute a debt and contacting a lawyer for advice were not legally cognizable harms, and that psychological states such as confusion and worry caused by the letter were likewise insufficiently concrete. Based on this analysis, the Seventh Circuit vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Dissent Raised Concerns about Deference to Congress and a Growing Circuit Split Circuit Judge Hamilton dissented and raised concerns about "zombie debt," such as Pierre's, and a greater circuit split on "whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to create private causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other consumer protection statutes for injuries that are intangible but quite real." The dissent asserted that Congress has authorized private actions to seek damages for harm such as emotional distress, stress, anxiety, confusion, and fear. In Judge Hamilton's view, in passing the FDCPA, Congress specifically prohibited actions likely to cause intangible and emotional harm, such as fear and confusion, by including threats, obscene language, and false or misleading statements. The dissent reasoned that Pierre's claim satisfied Article III standing under both Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 340 (2016), and TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. 2190, "by offering evidence of harms that, first, lie close to the heart of the protection Congress reasonably tried to offer consumer debtors in the FDCPA, and second, bear close relationships to harms long recognized under the common law and constitutional law." The dissent pointed to the Third, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits as being less restrictive in allowing standing for intangible injuries such as emotional or psychological harm under the FDCPA, and the Sixth and Eighth Circuits as issuing decisions with a broader approach toward standing for similar injuries. Impact On Businesses Facing FDCPA Lawsuits Alleging Only Emotional or Psychological Harm Businesses litigating FDCPA lawsuits within the Seventh Circuit should review this decision closely, as it may provide fruitful grounds for dismissing cases for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the failure to establish standing under Article III. However, as the dissent demonstrated, other circuits have interpreted standing more broadly and found emotional distress to be concrete enough to establish standing. Moreover, dismissal for lack of Article III standing may simply mean that the case moves forward in state court. Because of the differing approaches across the circuits and the important question raised regarding the power of Congress to protect consumers from a multitude of harms through legislation, we expect this to remain a contested area of law until the Supreme Court provides further guidance. [GN] MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Denial of Goyette's Bid to Amend Schedules Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota affirms the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order issued in the lawsuit styled Jared Goyette, et al., Plaintiffs v. City of Minneapolis, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1302 (WMW/DTS) (D. Minn.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' appeal of the Feb. 8, 2022 Order of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, which denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order in the case. Background The Individual Plaintiffs are journalists, photographers, and other members of the press, who filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff Communications Workers of America (CWA) is an international labor union that represents news media workers. Defendant Medaria Arradondo is the former Chief of Police for Defendant City of Minneapolis (collectively, City Defendants). Defendant Robert Kroll was a Minneapolis Police Lieutenant and President of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. Defendant David Hutchinson is the Hennepin County Sheriff. The factual details pertaining to the Plaintiffs' allegations against the Defendants are addressed in several of the Court's prior orders, including the Oct. 28, 2021 Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class-action lawsuit against the State Defendants, City Defendants, and Kroll in June 2020. All of the Plaintiffs' claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging various constitutional violations, civil conspiracy and a failure to intervene. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Jared Goyette moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the Defendants from further violating the constitutional rights of the press. The Court denied the motion without prejudice because the protests had ceased and Goyette failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of harm. Goyette also filed a first amended complaint in June 2020, joining additional plaintiffs and factual allegations but no additional legal claims. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint in July 2020, joining additional plaintiffs and legal claims. The Magistrate Judge issued the now-operative pretrial scheduling order on Jan. 14, 2021. The pretrial scheduling order required, among other things, all fact discovery to be completed by Dec. 1, 2021. Thereafter, the parties exchanged initial disclosures on March 29, 2021. These initial disclosures included more than 6,000 pages of documents produced by City Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a second motion for a TRO against the State Defendants on April 14, 2021. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' second motion for a TRO, concluding that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims against the State Defendants, a threat of irreparable harm absent a TRO, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighed in favor granting a TRO. Subsequently, the parties agreed to extend the duration of the TRO until the date of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 28, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered a supplemental briefing. While the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was pending, the Plaintiffs served discovery requests on the State Defendants, Kroll, and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in July and August 2021. The Plaintiffs did not serve discovery requests on the City Defendants during this time. In September 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the now-operative third amended complaint, joining three additional plaintiffs and Defendants Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson and Minnesota State Patrol Major Joseph Dwyer. The third amended complaint adds no new legal claims. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the State Defendants on Oct. 28, 2021. More than a week later, on Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs for the first time attempted to serve discovery requests on the City Defendants, providing insufficient time for the City Defendants to respond before the Dec. 1, 2021 fact-discovery deadline. Thereafter, the City Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that, because the discovery requests were untimely, the City Defendants would not be responding. The Plaintiffs moved to modify the pretrial scheduling order on Nov. 30, 2021. In doing so, the Plaintiffs sought to extend the fact-discovery deadline by eight months--to July 31, 2022--and to extend other discovery and motion deadlines by several months. The City Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' motion. Although the State Defendants, Kroll, and Sheriff Hutchinson did not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order, these Defendants did not separately file motions on behalf of themselves or formally join the Plaintiffs' motion. Following a hearing, the Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion in a Feb. 8, 2022 Order. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Plaintiffs had not established good cause to amend the pretrial scheduling order because the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they diligently attempted to comply with the scheduling order's deadlines. The Plaintiffs now appeal the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order. Analysis I. Legal Standards The Plaintiffs challenge the Magistrate Judge's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order. Judge Wright notes that a district court has broad discretion in establishing and enforcing the deadlines in a pretrial scheduling order. II. Magistrate Judge's Findings and Conclusions In a Feb. 8, 2022 Order, the Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated diligence for several reasons. First, the Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that some of the Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that this fact has no relevance to whether the Plaintiffs acted diligently. Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the filing of a third amended complaint in September 2021 did not excuse the Plaintiffs' failure to complete discovery before the Dec. 1, 2021 fact-discovery deadline. Among other things, the Magistrate Judge observed that the Plaintiffs served discovery on numerous Defendants and non-parties before filing the third amended complaint, and the three new plaintiffs and two new defendants named in the third amended complaint were involved in this case for several months before the Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. Third, because prejudice is not relevant to the Plaintiffs' diligence, the Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that the City Defendants would not be prejudiced by an extension of the pretrial deadlines. Nor is the Plaintiffs' strategic decision to delay serving discovery requests relevant to this analysis. The Magistrate Judge also observed that the City Defendants' initial disclosures, which included more than 6,000 pages of documents, were produced eight months before the fact-discovery deadline and the Plaintiffs had a team of 12 attorneys, who could have pursued timely discovery from the City Defendants. Fourth, the Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' assertion that the "need for the discovery" weighs in favor of granting the Plaintiffs' motion, because this argument is irrelevant to whether the Plaintiffs acted diligently. III. Plaintiffs' Objections The Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions on two grounds. First, the Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge erred by disregarding the fact that some of the Defendants agreed to the requested modifications to the pretrial schedule and instead focusing on whether the Plaintiffs could have served discovery on the City Defendants earlier. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that significant changed circumstances warrant amending the pretrial scheduling order. A. Defendants' Agreement The Plaintiffs first argue that they were unquestionably diligent in prosecuting this case and that the Magistrate Judge erred by concluding otherwise and misapplied the applicable legal standard. According to the Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge erroneously disregarded the fact that every defendant other than the City Defendants agreed that the pretrial scheduling order should be modified and instead focused on whether the Plaintiffs could have served timely discovery requests on the City Defendants. For at least three reasons, the Plaintiffs' argument is contrary to the legal standard, which the Magistrate Judge correctly applied, Judge Wright holds. First, the fact that some of the Defendants agreed that the pretrial scheduling order should be modified is irrelevant to the applicable legal standard, which hinges on whether the moving party was diligent in attempting to comply with the pretrial scheduling order. Second, even if agreement from the Defendants were relevant to the good-cause analysis, it would hold little persuasive weight in the circumstances presented here, Judge Wright opines. Third, contrary to the Plaintiffs' objections, the Magistrate Judge did not err by focusing his analysis on whether the Plaintiffs could have served discovery on the City Defendants earlier. The Plaintiffs' purported need to modify the pretrial schedule, as reflected in the memorandum of law accompanying their motion, arises from the Plaintiffs' need to seek discovery from the City Defendants. As such, Judge Wright finds, the Magistrate Judge correctly focused his analysis on whether the Plaintiffs diligently sought discovery from the City Defendants, as opposed to whether the Plaintiffs diligently litigated other aspects of this case. Judge Wright points out, among other things, that the undisputed facts do not demonstrate diligent efforts to seek discovery from the City Defendants within the confines of the pretrial scheduling order. Indeed, the Plaintiffs concede in their objections that they "could have" sought discovery from the City Defendants sooner. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order on this basis lack merit, Judge Wright holds. B. Changed Circumstances The Plaintiffs next object to the Magistrate Judge's purported failure to consider the significant changed circumstances that occurred after the entry of the Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs contend that they spent months seeking injunctive relief against the State Defendants, which prevented them from seeking discovery from the City Defendants before the fact-discovery deadline. But litigation strategy decisions do not excuse a party from the obligation to diligently attempt to comply with a pretrial scheduling order, Judge Wright holds. In summary, the Plaintiffs have identified no change in the law, newly discovered facts or other significant change in circumstance that prevented them from even attempting to comply with the pretrial scheduling order by seeking timely discovery from the City Defendants, Judge Wright opines. As such, the Magistrate Judge did not err by concluding that the Plaintiffs did not establish good cause to modify the pretrial scheduling order. C. Alternative Relief The Plaintiffs request, in the alternative, an order modifying the pretrial scheduling order in two respects: first, to provide additional time for all parties other than the City Defendants to complete fact discovery based on mutual stipulation, and second, to compel the City Defendants to respond to the untimely discovery requests that the Plaintiffs served in November 2021. Judge Wright notes that the Plaintiffs did not request from the Magistrate Judge the alternative relief they now seek. The Plaintiffs could have, but did not, move to compel discovery from the City Defendants or seek a more limited modification of the pretrial scheduling order. And Defendants Kroll and Sheriff Hutchinson could have, but did not, appeal the Magistrate Judge's order or separately move to modify the pretrial scheduling order. Granting such relief now, after the Plaintiffs have waived such arguments, would be contrary to the Magistrate Judge's sound conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend the pretrial scheduling order, Judge Wright points out. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for alternative relief is denied. Order Based on this analysis and all the files, records and proceedings, Judge Wright holds that the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p92n3ue from Leagle.com. MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER DYE, et. al., v. MLD MORTGAGE, INC., dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No. 1:19-cv-03304-ELH (D. Md.), the Parties jointly move to withdraw as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to reinstatement of the Motion and the associated briefing on motion of any party. On May 27, 2022, the Parties reached an Agreement settling both the individual and class claims alleged in the Complaint. The Agreement proposes and will seek approval of a Settlement Class thereby rendering the pending motion for class certification moot. The Parties therefore move the Court for withdrawal of the pending motion for class certification without prejudice to any party moving to reinstating Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the associated briefing, if the Parties' Agreement does not reach final approval. MLD provides financing services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tp11pT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Harry Levy, Esq. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS P.C. Dulaney Center II 901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-5426 Facsimile: (410) 825-5426 E-mail: hlevy@shumakerwilliams.com MONSANTO CO: Roundup Certification Hearing Set for March 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------- Klein Lawyers LLP disclosed that Roundup was a spray weed killer developed and manufactured by Monsanto in the 1970s. First registered for use in Canada in 1976, Roundup is a chemical herbicide that could be used for both personal and commercial purposes. Over the decades, it became one of the most popular and widely used chemical herbicides in the world. It has been used by farmers, professional landscapers, groundskeepers, gardeners, and homeowners for decades. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, which is a form of isopropylamine salt. It is a non-selective herbicide, meaning its effectiveness lies in its ability to kill most types of plants. It kills plants by disrupting the enzymatic pathways, thus preventing them from creating critical proteins that are necessary for growth and survival. Its popularity has resulted in billions of pounds of weed killers containing glyphosate being used on everything from large-scale crops to personal home gardens over the years. In an effort to promote the large-scale use of Roundup in crop fields, Monsanto also developed genetically engineered crops that would allow a farmer to liberally spray the product on their crops without any fear it would damage them. They called these genetically modified crops "Roundup Ready." These included crops like corn and soybeans. How Safe Is Glyphosate? Though created to kill weeds and unwanted plants, questions have long been posed about the safety of glyphosate to humans. A large body of research has indicated that, when used over the course of many years, glyphosate is a probable carcinogenic agent to humans. This chronic exposure may lead to serious illnesses and diseases. Glyphosate use has been linked to several forms of Non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, including: -- B-cell lymphoma -- T-cell lymphoma -- Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) -- Hairy cell lymphoma These forms of cancer originate in the lymphatic system, which is a part of the immune system. The lymphatic system uses nodes and vessels to move white blood cells contained in lymph throughout the body. These white blood cells help to fight infections. As early as the 1980s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may have suspected that glyphosate could be dangerous after researchers began to note the increase in the number of farmers who were being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A 2008 Swedish study published in the International Journal of Cancer found that a person's risk for developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma doubled after less than a decade's worth of exposure to products containing glyphosate. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cited approximately 1,000 studies and concluded that there was a risk of glyphosate cancer in humans. Research also suggests that glyphosate may impact the environment and pose a threat to various endangered species, pointing specifically to the Monarch butterfly whose population has declined significantly over the last two decades. The Monsanto Company Originally founded as a chemical company in 1901 in the United States, Monsanto enjoyed early success in the production of food additives, rubber, and plastics. It didn't start producing the agricultural chemical products for which it is known today until the 1940s. Even before it began producing Roundup in the 1970s, Monsanto had a long history of manufacturing products that have serious health implications for humans and animals alike. In the 1930s, Monsanto purchased Swann Chemical Company who produced Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs were widely used in electrical apparatus. Production was banned in the United States in 1978 after the chemical was linked to cancer in humans and animals. However, because PCBs were so widely used and have such a long lifespan, they are still present in rivers, buildings, and soil even today. In the mid-1940s, it started producing the popular herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which has been classified by both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization as a possible carcinogen to humans. In the mid-1940s, it started producing DDT, an insecticide used to kill malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. DDT was later banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1970s, citing adverse environmental effects to wildlife, along with the potential risks to human health. In the 1960s, it produced Agent Orange as a wartime contractor for the United States government. Monsanto's pattern of producing dangerous products has resulted in many large lawsuits throughout the company's life. The class action lawsuit regarding Roundup is only the most recent. In 2018, Monsanto was purchased by pharmaceutical giant Bayer for over $60 billion. Class Action Filed Against Monsanto and Bayer by Klein Lawyers In 2019, Klein Lawyers was hired to file a class action against the manufacturers of Roundup Monsanto and Bayer regarding injuries caused by using Roundup. The proposed class consists of any person who was exposed to Roundup in British Columbia after 1976 and after that exposure developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In the Notice of Civil Claim, the plaintiff states that "Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unsuitable for its purpose, and lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its use." The plaintiff alleges that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto and Bayer falsified scientific research to prove it was safe. That lawsuit seeks to obtain relief for the class members including general damages, special damages, punitive damages, pre-judgement interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages, and recovery of health care and other costs. Klein Lawyers is working with a group of law firms in different provinces across Canada who represent Canadians who used Roundup. We have joined forces with these firms to move these lawsuits forward in a coordinated manner. The class may include thousands of Canadians who have been harmed by Roundup. A certification hearing has been set for March 28-30, 2023. The Honourable Justice A.D. Grace of the Ontario Superior Court will hear the certification application. The certification hearing is an important step in the lawsuit. For a lawsuit to proceed as a class action, the judge must decide that this case is suitable for consolidation as a class action. The judge will consider such factors as: are the claims from class members common, is this the best method to hear these cases or are there better methods such as individual lawsuits. If the judge certifies the case, the lawsuit will move forward as a class action for all class members. The defendants, Monsanto and Bayer, have denied all of the allegations made in the filed lawsuits, including that Roundup causes cancer. They have promised to "vigorously defend" their products. In a statement, they said, "Glyphosate has been extensively studied globally by scientists and regulators, and results from this research confirm it is not carcinogenic. We firmly stand behind the safety of glyphosate-based products and as a company devoted to life sciences, assure Canadians that their health and the environment are our top priority." Calls for Bans of Products Containing Glyphosate A few countries have chosen to ban all products containing glyphosate, and more countries have plans to phase out the product, including Germany who will ban glyphosate-containing products by 2023. Other countries have chosen to implement restrictions on glyphosate including Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, and the Netherlands. Other national governments continue to maintain that glyphosate-containing products, including Roundup, do not cause cancer. There is no ban yet in Canada for glyphosate-containing products, although some cities and provinces have put restrictions in place. Many are concerned that Monsanto and Bayer have unduly influenced the decisions of various government entities regarding the safety of Roundup and other glyphosate-containing products. In the class action lawsuit filed by Klein Lawyers it is alleged that the defendants' embarked on a strategy to discredit the IARC's 2015 determination that a positive association existed between Roundup exposure and the development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. After the IARC's determination, Monsanto hired Intertek, a testing, inspection, and certification firm in Canada, to coordinate an independent panel of fifteen experts. They published five scientific papers in 2016. The experts and the papers they published all serve to contradict IARC's determination and establish, instead, that Roundup and glyphosate are safe. These papers were relied upon and even cited in the reports and decisions made by various government entities, including Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the European parliament. Contact Klein Lawyers If You've Been Harmed by Roundup Weed Killer Class action lawsuits seek to help victims of huge corporations like Monsanto and Bayer. Not only do these lawsuits help victims obtain compensation for their injuries, they also serve to hold these entities accountable for their wrongdoing and shine the media spotlight on them. [GN] MORPHE LLC: Brooks Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valerie Brooks v. Morphe LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01219-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying without prejudice to renewal motion for class certification. Any renewed motion must be filed within thirty days. Because Brooks has not proven the proposed class meets the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the court does not consider whether the class could be certified under one of the categories in Rule 23(b), the Court says. Valerie Brooks, who is legally blind, brought this action on behalf of a proposed class of visually impaired internet users. She alleges Morphe LLC operates a website that is not accessible to the visually impaired, and she moves now to certify the proposed class. Because she has not shown the class is "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable," and that class counsel will "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal, as explained in this order. According to Brooks's complaint, Morphe operates morphe.com, a website for affordable makeup. She alleges morphe.com is not accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. For example, she claims the website lacks alt-text that would permit screen reader software to describe the graphics and images on each page, and she alleges the website has empty links with no text, which prevents screen readers from communicating the link's purpose. Brooks asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and she seeks damages and prospective relief on behalf of a proposed class of visually impaired people who encounter the alleged barriers on morphe.com. Morphe manufactures beauty care products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpx2y7 at no extra charge.[CC] MTA NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Prunella Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH A. PRUNELLA, ADRIAN A. BUTLER, DANIEL D. JARVIS, GERMAN F. OVIEDO, JEREMIAH P. WHOLEY, ANTHONY F. ALLIA, ROBERTO APONTE, VICTOR BAPTISTE, SERGEY S. BYCHKOV, DOMINICK M. COSTAGLIOLA, THOMAS DINARDO, CARLOS M. FERNANDEZ, BRIAN FOGMEG, PHILLIP J. GOODWIN, JAMES C. LOIACONO, MICHAEL P. MCGRORY, WILLIAM MONTANO, MICHAEL P. O'CONNOR, CHARLES E. PICCIOTTO, JOSEPH D. PORTER, VERNON O. RAMSAY, and JOSEPH A. TLOCZKOWSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04657 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to properly calculate regular rate of pay, and failure to timely pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant, who work or have worked in the position of High Pressure Plant Tender. MTA New York City Transit is a company that operates bus, subway, and other rail transit systems, with its principal office and place of business located at 130 Livingston Plaza, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sara Faulman, Esq. John W. Stewart, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com slf@mselaborlaw.com jws@mselaborlaw.com - and – Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivaklipton.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Case Management Deadlines in Davis Reset -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis, et al v. Multnomah County, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02041 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the parties' joint request to reset case management deadlines as follows: -- Class certification motion Oct. 7, 2022 to be filed by: -- Response is due by: Nov. 18, 2022 -- Reply is due by: Dec. 16, 2022 The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon.[CC] MYLAN NV: Settlement Hearing in Price Fixing Suit Set for July 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen St. John, writing for abc10News, reports that folks with serious allergies know: EpiPens are a lifesaving, essential medicine. So if you purchased an EpiPen between Aug. 24, 2011, and Nov. 1, 2020, you may be awarded a portion of a major settlement by the drug manufacturer. The $264 million class action settlement is the result of a 2017 lawsuit that alleged price-fixing by Mylan, EpiPen's manufacturer. If you're a longtime EpiPen user, you probably remember that the price of the product steadily rose over time, putting a huge pinch on patients' wallets. In 2007, an EpiPen prescription cost $100. By 2016, the price had skyrocketed to $608. The suit's plaintiffs allege that Mylan worked with pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to artificially bump up the price of EpiPens. "Defendants devised an illegal scheme to monopolize the market for epinephrine auto-injector devices," the lawsuit claims. "As a result, millions of Americans relying on this life-saving device have paid exorbitant prices for EpiPens that are in no way tethered to or constrained by a competitive market." The EpiPen contains a pre-measured dose of epinephrine, a powerful synthetic hormone. Instead of drawing up medicine into a syringe, users simply press the "pen" against their body, triggering a needle to pop out and invisibly inject the medication. Epinephrine helps buy time in the case of a life-threatening allergic reaction. Users still need emergency medical attention, but the epinephrine helps relax the airway muscles as the reaction sets in. Drugmaker Pfizer agreed to pay $345 million in a class-action settlement that opened to claims last year. Now, Mylan has not admitted wrongdoing in its response to the price-fixing suit, but the company has agreed to pay the $264 million settlement. If you think you qualify for a portion of the settlement, you can visit EpiPenClassAction.com and file a claim. The site notes that if you've already submitted a proof of claim for the Pfizer settlement, you don't need to submit another now — you'll automatically be included as a member of the Mylan settlement. There are a few caveats in place -- people who work for any of the pharma companies involved are excluded from the class, for instance -- but many consumers who purchased an EpiPen or its generics can join. Filing a claim takes just a few minutes. You don't have to provide any proof of purchase right away, though you may be asked to submit documentation in the future. The final approval hearing for the settlement is set for July 6. The amount individuals may be awarded is yet to be determined. (It depends on how many customers join the suit.) Customers have until July 25 to submit a claim. If you're an EpiPen patient, add your name to the class and go dig up a receipt! [GN] NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Seeks Leave to File Rejoinder ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE CENTER OF FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Florida limited liability companies, Case No. 2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file a rejoinder in support of its Motion for Class Certification. If allowed, the Plaintiff will file its rejoinder, not to exceed 2 pages, on the same day an Order is issued granting this motion. This case is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227, against the Defendants National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC, Spine Center of Florida, LLC, and Pain Management and Consultants of Southwest Florida, P.L. regarding 16,227 unsolicited fax ads sent to 8,147 unique fax numbers. On April 8, 2022, the Court entered an Order on Plaintif's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Page Limitation granting each side leave to file a brief of no more than 35 pages in support of and in opposition to class certification. The Plaintiff timely filed its motion for class certification on April 18, 2022, and Defendants timely filed their opposition on May 16, 2022. National Spine provides health care services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mwb0FX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Basch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Mozes Basch, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03264-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit Inc. -- https://ncirm.com/ -- is a small-sized collection agency in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron R Easley, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Phone: (908) 237-1660 Fax: (908) 237-1663 Email: aeasley@sessions.legal NETFLIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Did you lose money on investments in Netflix? If so, please visit Netflix, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights. Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock or call options, or sold put options of Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NFLX) between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix primarily operates an entertainment platform that offers TV series, documentaries, feature films, and mobile games across a variety of genres and languages. It also offers a DVD-by-mail service in the U.S. Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements about Netflix's business. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading when made because: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services; (2) the Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis; and (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were being adversely affected. On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3 million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the prior year period. On this news, the Company's stock price fell over 21% to close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022. Then, on April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022, compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to four factors, including account sharing and competition with other streaming services. On this news, the price of Netflix stock declined over 35% to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased NFLX common stock or call options, or sold put options, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Netflix, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] NETFLIX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Netflix, Inc.: Shareholders who purchased shares of NFLX during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=27909&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock or call options, or sold put options, between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive. ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services; (2) the Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were being adversely affected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=27909&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of NFLX during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 5, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] NETFLIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX) between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 5, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Netflix securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Netflix class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5912 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services; (2) Netflix was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Netflix was losing subscribers on a net basis; (4) as a result, Netflix's financial results were being adversely affected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Netflix's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Netflix class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5912 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW INDY: Seeks Dismissal of Foul Odor Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Indira Eskieva and James Brierton, writing for WCNC, report that the New-Indy Containerboard company, the facility at the center of a years-long issue over the alleged emission of toxins and foul odors, asked a judge on June 1 to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit alleges the paper plant is emitting a foul smell and toxins into the air, which is impacting homes as far as 20 miles outside of the Catawba, South Carolina plant. Plaintiffs argue the smell is impacting people's health and livelihood. Attorneys allege complaints of a foul odor began in early 2020 after the facility switched from manufacturing white paper to brown paper. WCNC Charlotte has covered this story for more than a year. On June 1, Wednesday, cameras and phones were prohibited inside of the courthouse, but WCNC Charlotte's Indira Eskieva was in the courtroom during the arguments. New-Indy argued several points to the judge as to why the lawsuit should be dismissed, and while the judge has not made a decision yet, attorneys representing thousands of impacted residents feel like she'll rule in their favor. What started as complaints in early 2020 has turned into a class action lawsuit with almost 2,000 plaintiffs. New-Indy attorneys told a judge on June 1 she should dismiss the lawsuit. Some of the arguments made included that the lawsuit is not specific enough, that it's not possible that homes as far as 20 miles away from the plant could be affected, or that parent company New-Indy Containerboard should be named in the lawsuit when New-Indy Catawba is an LLC. The judge made it clear she disagreed with New-Indy's arguments – something attorneys for residents view as a good sign. "You know people that are impacted by New-Indy's operations are dealing with this every single day so the best way we can represent them is to do everything we can to move this case along and push the case along," Chase T. Brockstedt, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said. "Today was a step in that process." It's unclear when the judge will have her decision ready. New-Indy attorneys did not want to comment, but a spokesperson for the company provided the following statement: "New-Indy Catawba has kept the public regularly updated on its substantial progress on odor remediation efforts. Hydrogen sulfide emissions from the facility have been negligible or zero for many months due to upgrades and improvements New-Indy Catawba has made. New-Indy Catawba will continue to cooperate with the federal and state authorities. We strive to be a good neighbor, desirable employer and major economic driver for the region. Our cutting-edge technology has made the mill a model for the industry." Residents like Kerri Bishop tell WCNC Charlotte they are still experiencing the same health issues and a foul odor. "All they have to do is drive around when the wind hits," Bishop said. "And they'll see – it is. I mean I'm 13 miles. I can drive seven miles away and still smell it." State agencies have received 22,000 complaints from residents about New Indy. "Obviously there are other environmental contamination cases that are pending in other parts of the state, but certainly have not seen something this widespread," Brockstedt said. Attorneys say in addition to the class action lawsuit, there's another case that's the EPA versus New Indy. Attorneys for residents say they are trying to intervene with that case so they can be more involved in decisions that are made. [GN] NEW YORK: Court Interpreters Sue Over Discriminatory Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ MultiLingual reports that a group of courtroom interpreters has proposed a class action suit against the New York State Unified Court System for discriminatory pay practices targeting immigrant groups. In a complaint issued May 25, 28 court interpreters working in the state of New York alleged that pay rates for courtroom interpreters are not proportionate to the amount of education and work required from them. The complaint notes that courtroom interpreters in the state are not only paid significantly less than their counterparts in the federal court system, but are also paid less than other courtroom personnel, particularly court reporters. Because a much larger portion of court interpreters are foreign-born than other courtroom employees, the complaint alleges that the disparity in pay rates discriminates on the basis of nationality. "Though highly skilled, those interpreters are paid significantly less than all other courtroom personnel employed in New York City courts, because many of them are foreign-born, are of foreign ancestry and because their skills are used to provide court access to non-English speaking, limited-English speaking or persons with hearing disabilities," the complaint alleges. In addition to the disparities between interpreters at the state and federal level, the interpreters note that the pass rates for civil service exams for interpreters are particularly low compared to other legal professionals. Court reporters, for example, have a 55% pass rate for their civil service exam. Moreover, 68% of candidates passed the New York State Bar Exam in 2017, according to the complaint. Candidates to become court interpreters, on the other hand, have a mere 10% pass rate for their civil service exam. Since court interpreting was first professionalized as a formal career path in the mid-20th Century, states have adopted very rigorous screening processes. In theory, court interpreters only need a high school degree or equivalent (according to the job description for New York state court interpreters), but this is often not the case. In order to pass the civil service exams and succeed as interpreters, candidates need cognitive and linguistic abilities typically developed in higher education. Despite this rigor, interpreters in New York are generally paid less than the state's court reporters, who perform a similar task without the added challenge of working in two languages. According to the complaint, the minimum salary for a court reporter in New York is just about $4,000 less than the maximum salary for a court interpreter, at $85,886. The maximum salary for a court reporter, on the other hand, is $131,923. A disproportionate number of interpreters were born and/ or raised abroad compared to court reporters -- the interpreters believe this disparity is a result of discriminatory practices in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [GN] NEW YORK: Shomo Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. NYSDOCCS ----------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jose J. Shomo filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JOSE J. SHOMO, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-128, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Jose Shomo, currently incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, commenced this action on January 7, 2021 under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition and denied him certain medical treatment. On November 19, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted on May 4, 2022 through a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by Judge Philip M. Halpern and Clerk's Judgment, thus dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No. 22-1186, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 31, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jose J. Shomo, and all those like and similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of DOCCS; Dr. John Morley, Chief Medical Officer of DOCCS; and Dr. Gaetan Zamilus, are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 NIGHTFOOD INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NightFood, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NightFood, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04570-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nightfood -- https://nightfood.com/ -- is a nighttime snack company that produces and distributes ice creams.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NIKOLA CORP: Stockholder Derivative Suit Put on Hold ---------------------------------------------------- Leslie A. Pappas, writing for Law360, reports that Electric truck company Nikola Corp. and its criminally charged former CEO convinced the Delaware Chancery Court on June 1 to put a stockholder derivative class action on holding pending the resolution of related legal actions in New York and Arizona. [GN] ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kendall ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KENDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEVIN C. TANG, MICHAEL HEARNE, JOHN G. LEMKEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff entered an order certifying the Settlement Class and granting final approval of the settlement: The Court said, "All persons who satisfy the class definition are Settlement Class Members bound by this Order. The form and method of notice satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court grants Co-Lead Counsel $4,250,000 in attorneys' fees and $56.147.94 15 costs. The Court also grants class representative Mr. Kevin Kendall an incentive award of $5,000. The attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive award will be paid out of the Settlement Fund. The Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this settlement. The Court dismisses the action with prejudice, and no 20 shall be awarded other than those specified in this Order or provided by the settlement agreement. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. The Plaintiff alleges that significant safety concerns regarding tesetaxal arose during the Phase 3 study, which Plaintiff alleges Defendants were aware of but did not disclose to investors or the public. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements containing misrepresentations and omissions regarding the tesetaxel Phase 3 study, patient outcomes and experiences while using tesetaxel, and the likelihood of tesetaxels' approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On March 22, 2021, Odonate issued a press release announcing it was discontinuing tesetaxel's development following feedback from the FDA that the clinical data package for tesetaxel was unlikely to support FDA approval. Odonate is a pharmaceutical company based in San Diego. Odonate's single, primary drug candidate was tesetaxel, an orally administered chemotherapy agent developed to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The Defendants Tang, Hearne, and Lemkey were officers and collectively the majority shareholder of Odonate during the relevant period. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aQDTKC at no extra charge.[CC] OKTA INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSCR), if they purchased the Company's securities between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until July 19, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/okta-inc-nasdaqgs-okta/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Kuznicki Law PLLC Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. 445 Central Avenue, Suite 344 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 https://kclasslaw.com [GN] OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Did you lose money on investments in Oscar Health? If so, please visit Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights. Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) pursuant to and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. Oscar is a health insurance company that claimed to be the first such company "built around a full stack technology platform" which will "allow [Oscar] to continue to innovate like a technology company and not a traditional insurer." In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the Offering which were purportedly to be used to repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses, under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when made because: (1) Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; and (4) Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth. On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that "[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year. On November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7 million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year. Since the IPO, the price of Oscar Health's stock has fallen over 85%, closing as low as $5.72 per share on May 12, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 11, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired OSCR common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] PARKASH 1630: Seeks Extension to Respond to Diaz Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delfino Adan Diaz v. Parkash 1630 LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court for an extension of time for them to respond to the motion to certify class filed by Plaintiff on May 26, 2022. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xu6WMJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Johnson, Esq. Michael Steven Samuel, Esq. HAMRA LAW GROUP, PC. WWW.HAMRALAWGROUP.COM 32 Broadway, Ste. 1818 NEW YORK, NY 10004 E-mail: KJOHNSONHAMRALAWGROUP.COM Telephone: (646) 590-0571 Facsimile: (646) 590-0571 PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Pegasystems Inc.: Shareholders who purchased shares of PEGA during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27914&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased PEGA common stock between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, inclusive. ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian, a principal competitor; (2) defendants' product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through, the personal involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the Company's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with the Company's written Code of Conduct, including its express prohibition on "stealing" confidential information from a competitor and "misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information"; (5) the Company was "unable to reasonably estimate damages" in the lawsuit filed by Appian as a result of the foregoing misconduct (the "Appian Litigation"); and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about PEGA's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. DEADLINE: July 18, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27914&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of PEGA during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 18, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Pegasystems Inc. (NasdaqGS: PEGA), if they purchased the Company's shares between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until July 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-pega/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Kuznicki Law PLLC Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. 445 Central Avenue, Suite 344 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 https://kclasslaw.com [GN] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Pegasystems Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA) between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 18, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased PEGA securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PEGA class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6286 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 18, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian; (2) Defendants' product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of PEGA's CEO; (4) PEGA's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with PEGA's written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was "unable to reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about PEGA's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. The truth regarding PEGA's fraudulent conduct was revealed after the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA's misappropriation of trade secrets. In response to this news, PEGA's stock price fell 21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to digest the verdict, PEGA's stock price dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per share the following day. To join the PEGA class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6286 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE: Guerra Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KRIS GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE PHARMACY, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 22CV396906, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-03259 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse all business expenses, failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination/separation of employment, and unfair business practices. Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, Inc. is a company that operates retail pharmacy and health stores in the U.S., including California, with its principal place of business in Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and – Kevin Ha, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Kevin.Ha@jacksonlewis.com PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, d/b/a PILOT FLYING J, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18278 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay an additional hour of pay or accurately pay an additional hour of pay in lieu of providing a rest period, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to reimburse expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a guest service leader from approximately July 2020 until March 2021. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, doing business as Pilot Flying J, is an operator of a travel center across the United States, including California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com PNC BANK: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by July 11 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY J. POLONOWSKI and BARBARA A. POLONOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Banking Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-00151-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order that Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is due on or before July 11, 2022. On June 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion is currently due on June 29, 2022. The Plaintiffs' depositions are currently scheduled to occur on June 20, 2022. PNC Bank offers a wide range of personal banking services including checking and savings accounts, credit cards, mortgage loans, and auto loans. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvcISJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq. WESTBROOK LAW PLLC Centennial Plaza, Suite 205 2851 Charlevoix Dr. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 288-9548 E-mail: ted@westbrook.law The Defendant is represented by: Fredrick S. Levin, Esq. BUCKLEY LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 424-3984 E-mail: flevin@buckleyfirm.com PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Public Consulting Group, Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00012198-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 2, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00813-WQH-MDD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Public Consulting Group (PCG) -- https://www.publicconsultinggroup.com/ -- is a leading public sector solutions implementation and operations improvement firm that partners with health, education, and human services agencies to improve lives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Alan Wong, Esq. LEXICON LAW PC Aegis Law Firm 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Carrie Anne Gonell, Esq. Joseph A. Govea, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 830-0600 Fax: (714) 830-0700 Email: cgonell@morganlewis.com joseph.govea@morganlewis.com PVH RETAIL: Gamboa Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JESUS GAMBOA-ACOSTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PVH RETAIL STORES LLC and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00016377-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00818-LAB-NLS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. PVH Retail Stores LLC is an American clothing company, headquartered in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com - and – Aileen H. Kim, Esq. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 533-7539 E-mail: aileenkim@jonesday.com QUEENSLAND: 2011 Brisbane Flood Victims Start Receiving Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reports that victims of the 2011 Brisbane floods have started receiving part of the $450 million settlement won in a class action against dam operator SunWater and the state of Queensland. Key points: Victims of the 2011 Brisbane floods have started receiving compensation payouts Maurice Blackburn won a case against a dam operator and the state of Queensland in 2019 Final settlement amounts will be made at the end of 2022 or early 2023 In November 2019, the Supreme Court in New South Wales found flood engineers operating the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams in Queensland were negligent and failed to follow the manual they had helped draft. While the court ruled in favour of the negligence claim against the Queensland government of the day, as well as Seqwater and SunWater, other aspects of the case failed. The class action alleged the dam operators failed to follow their own manual and did not make enough room for heavy rainfall until it was too late, heightening flood levels and damaging more properties. Maurice Blackburn lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan told ABC Radio Brisbane's Steve Austin some of the almost 7,000 claimants had received an interim payment. Blonde short haired woman in black suit She said the total payout would not be distributed until all legal matters associated with the case were finalised. That could take until the end of this year or early 2023. "We are releasing partial payments now so people can get something," Ms Gilsenan said. "We've paid about 300 people so far and we are paying on a rolling basis -- when people accept their loss assessment, we can pay them." Maurice Blackburn developed a settlement scheme which informed how the money would be distributed among the claimants and took into account their location and the damage sustained. Ms Gilsenan said most people accepted their assessment and wanted to "move through the process". "There are a small number of people who have appealed and asked us to look at that assessment again and we've done that," she said. "They're only ever going to get half of what they lost, at most, because we only settled half the case, half the case we lost, so I can understand why some people are angry. "But more than 95 per cent understand and accept what's being allocated." Describing the initial payouts as a "conservative amount", Ms Gilsenan said most were valued at just several thousand dollars. She acknowledged the decade-long legal process was too long and left victims without a sense of closure for many years. Insurers to receive payouts Ms Gilsenan said some insurers were entitled to a payout as well. She said some members of the class action were brought in by their insurers who wanted to recoup money they had paid out. "Like individuals, insurers paid out in a instance where there was a wrongdoer who ended up settling, so they're entitled to a portion of that as well," Ms Gilsenan said. "A bit less than half of the money will go to insurers. There's no disputing the fact a huge amount of money was paid out by them. "If you've got a house and a car and both of those were significantly damaged in the floods, and your car might not have comprehensive insurance but your house does . . . sometimes we've got claims brought by the group member and the insurer together for both of the parts they've footed the bill for." Experience will never be forgotten Lynette Lynch's Fernvale home flooded to the ceiling in 2011 and she lost everything. She described the end of the court battle as a relief. "We are finally getting closure on all of this and it won't be in the back of our mind so much. It's been very stressful and for so many people it's been awful," Ms Lynch said. "We never got paid by our insurer. We took it to the ombudsman and even then you only get a percentage of your claim. "The amount [from Maurice Blackburn] was nowhere close to recouping our losses. But we got more going through a class action than we would have individually." Since the inundation, Ms Lynch said she could only afford insurance premiums if she underinsured her home. "It was a brick exterior, the brick stayed there, but it had to be Gernied [high water-pressure cleaned] and Gernied and Gernied," she said. "The walls and the doors had to be removed and we had to slowly rebuild. I had a cottage out the back of my home so it was a double rebuild. "It felt bittersweet because I had to use cheaper materials to rebuild the house. I had to cut back on the cost because I just couldn't afford it." The flood event may have been 11 years ago now but Ms Lynch said some people would "never get past it". "Some people suffer really badly," she said. "They just relive that day over and over, and when they got back in their homes all their possessions were destroyed. The loss is too great. [GN] RHODE ISLAND: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Munir Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HASIM MUNIR, et al., Plaintiffs v. The Rhode Island Superior Court Corporation, Defendant, C.A. No. 22-039-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), Judge Mary S. McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island refuses to reconsider the Court's March 22, 2022 Judgment to adopt dismissal from Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Patricia Sullivan. The lawsuit is a civil complaint, filed by Hasim Munir and Gregory Hampton-Boyd, on behalf of themselves and a class of prisoners they purport to represent. They contend that they and others suffered improper indictments leading to criminal convictions in the state courts of Rhode Island, and they make vague allegations of misconduct, racial and gender animus, and other improper practices. On March 22, 2022, the Court accepted and adopted the Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sullivan which recommended dismissal after finding, pursuant to the screening required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), that the Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The Court also noted, in accepting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, what appeared at the time to be an absence of objection by the Plaintiffs. Apparently, the Court's Order and the Plaintiffs' objection crossed in the mail, as the latter was received and docketed on the same day as the Order. The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and filed a timely Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The effectiveness of the Notice of Appeal is delayed while the Court rules on the Motion to Alter Judgment. Although the Motion is captioned one to Alter Judgment, it actually asks the Court "to reconsider its March 22, 2022 Judgment to adopt dismissal from Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Patricia Sullivan." The basis of the Motion is that a timely Objection was in fact filed. Whether treated as a Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59, or as one for reconsideration pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to reconsider its own rulings, Judge McElroy holds that the case will remain dismissed, and the Motion is denied. She has considered again the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to dismiss, as well as the substance of the Objection and finds no cause to reconsider. Upon the same review, she finds no manifest error warranting an alteration of the judgment. The Objection cites a plethora of alleged facts, and court opinions, that the Plaintiffs complain were not specifically catalogued by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation. They infer from those omissions that she failed to sufficiently consider the record. To the contrary, the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation reveals a sufficiently thorough review of the state court record. More importantly, the Objection does not counter any of the legal reasons requiring dismissal. Chief among them is that both Plaintiffs currently have pending applications for post-conviction relief in the state courts challenging their convictions. Because there are outstanding convictions whose integrity is questioned by this civil action, the action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-89 (1994). Neither does the Objection address another major finding of the Magistrate Judge: That the Complaint fails to state a person who has violated any rights of the Plaintiffs. Instead, the Complaint sues the Superior Court of Rhode Island, an entity that is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and cannot be sued for damages. As the Magistrate Judge noted, to the extent the Complaint intends to sue the judges of the Superior Court, they enjoy absolute immunity. For the reasons she expressed, and others appearing in the Report and Recommendation adopted by the Court, Judge McElroy denies the Motion to Alter Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42ajpdtk from Leagle.com. RISKIFIED LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 1 disclosed that investors with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities fraud class action lawsuit against Riskified Ltd. ("Riskified" or the "Company") (NYSE: RSKD). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 1, 2022 If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Riskified lawsuit, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/riskified-ltd/. 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. The complaint filed alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) as Riskified expanded its user base, the quality of Riskified's machine learning platform had deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the Registration Statement), because of, among other things, inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with onboarding new merchants and entering new geographies and industries; (2) Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with relatively high rates of fraud including partnerships with cryptocurrency and remittance business in which Riskified had limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted the effectiveness of Riskified's machine learning platform; (3) as a result, Riskified was suffering from materially higher chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed gross profits and gross profit margins during its third fiscal quarter of 2021; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Snyder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled D C SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; ROCKET COMPANIES, INC.; QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; and QUICKEN LOANS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV14382, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03840 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act including unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, formerly known as Quicken Loans, LLC, is a mortgage loan provider based in Michigan. Rocket Companies, Inc. is a consumer lending company based in Michigan. Quicken Loans, Inc. is a mortgage loan provider based in Michigan. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad D. Bernard, Esq. Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Martin Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Chad.Bernard@jacksonlewis.com Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com ROOSEVELT FIELD: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sapuy v. Roosevelt Field Mall Dental, P.C., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00322 (E.D.N.Y.), Roosevelt Field Mall Dental, P.C. and Stomatcare DSO, LLC with counsel for Plaintiff Rainier Sapuy and the proposed class, and counsel for Defendant Care Angel, Inc., jointly move the Court seeking an extension to the deadlines to respond and reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which was filed June 1, 2022. The Parties have agreed to the following extension to the briefing schedule for the Motion: Event Original New Deadline Deadline -- Response to Motion June 15, 2022 June 29, 2022 (pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(b)) -- Reply to Motion June 22, 2022 July 6, 2022 (pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(b)) Roosevelt Field Dental PC is a medical group practice located in Garden City, New York. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6F0En at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kierstan Schultz, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP nixonpeabody.com 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Telephone: (603) 628-4031 Facsimile: (844) 675-4275 E-mail: kschultz@nixonpeabody.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Attys. Fees in Antitrust Suit Partly Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CONNER ERWIN, Objector-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-16291 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding for further proceedings, the order granting attorneys' fees. The case concerns attorneys' fees awarded to Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP (HB), class counsel for a class of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPP) in a lengthy multidistrict antitrust suit. The Court of Appeals previously vacated the district court's decisions awarding a total of $52,780,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to HB and remanded for the recalculation of the award. See In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig., 959 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (ODD I); and In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig., 804 F. App'x 443, 444 (9th Cir. 2020) (ODD II). On remand, the district court awarded HB $31,026,000 in attorneys' fees. Erwin now appeals the district court's order granting these attorneys' fees and denying his motion to "Enforce Settlement, Return Class Funds, and Disgorge Fees." Mr. Erwin challenges the newly entered award on three grounds. First, he alleges that violations of the settlement agreements and breaches of ethical and fiduciary duties by HB require forfeiture of the fee award. Second, Erwin argues that the district court miscalculated HB's initial fee bid, rendering the court's calculation of the overall fee award unreasonable. Finally, Erwin contends that the district court abused its discretion by relying upon impermissible grounds to justify its upward departure from HB's bid amount. I. In common fund class action cases like the one at bar, the Court of Appeals review for abuse of discretion the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel as well as its method of calculating the fees. The factual findings underlying these decisions are reviewed for clear error. II. Mr. Erwin first challenges HB's treatment of the funds it received as a result of the district court's original fee awards. He makes two arguments: (1) that the settlement agreements required HB to return immediately the fees to the settlement fund after this court vacated the awards in ODD I and ODD II; and (2) that California's ethical rules required HB to place immediately the fees into a client trust account following vacatur. The Court of Appeals rejects these arguments and affirms the district court's denial of Erwin's motion to "Enforce Settlement, Return Class Funds, and Disgorge Fees." The applicable local rule provides that attorneys' practicing before the district court must be familiar and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California, N.D. Cal. Local Rule 11-4(a)(1). Each of the settlement agreements at issue include provisions requiring HB to return promptly funds approved as part of attorneys' fees awards in the event the order making the Fee and Expense Award is reversed or modified. Because the Court of Appeals did not reverse or modify--but rather vacated--the fee award orders, the district court did not err in determining that HB was under no clear obligation per the terms of the settlement agreements to refund immediately the fees. Mr. Erwin further argues that the district court erred by declining to order disgorgement for purported breaches of ethical and fiduciary obligations. The Court of Appeals disagrees. The Court of Appeals notes that it has held that, in determining what fees are reasonable, a district court may consider a lawyer's misconduct, which affects the value of the lawyer's services, citing Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 653 (9th Cir. 2012). In order for disgorgement of attorneys' fees to be warranted, the client must have suffered harm resulting from the alleged misconduct, Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Here, the class suffered no prejudice from the alleged conduct, the Court of Appeals finds. Contrary to Erwin's claim that the class suffered harm by not collecting interest on the entirety of the $52,780,000 distributed to HB, the class was entitled to interest only on the portion of the funds that ultimately belongs to the class. The Court of Appeals holds that the district court correctly ordered HB to repay the difference between its original award and its post-vacatur award, plus interest, and HB has already complied with that order. Therefore, even assuming HB was required to return immediately the fee to the settlement fund or to hold it in a client trust account, the IPP class suffered no prejudice from HB's refusal to do so. The district court did not err when it determined that the harmless error doctrine forecloses Erwin's disgorgement arguments. III. Mr. Erwin next challenges the district court's award of attorneys' fees on remand as unreasonable. He contends that the district court began from the wrong "starting point" in its fee calculation because it declined to read HB's fee bid as employing marginal rates rather than flat rates. The Court of Appeals agrees with Erwin that HB's original fee proposal called for marginal rates to calculate the fee. In ODD I, the Court of Appeals held "that when class counsel secures appointment as interim lead counsel by proposing a fee structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid becomes the starting point for determining a reasonable fee." In ascertaining this "starting point," the district court adopted a calculation that uses the grid incorporated into HB's bid to calculate the fees for each group of settling defendants, based on the total amount of each settlement. This was consistent with the Court of Appeals's opinion in ODD I. The district court determined that under its bid, HB was entitled "to recover 14% of the settlements from certain defendants, 13% from other defendants' larger settlements, 12% from the largest settlement, and no fee from one settlement that did not meet the minimum threshold for recovering fees." Ultimately, the district court calculated that HB would be entitled to $25,855,000 under its fee grid proposal, and the court began its analysis with this figure in mind. But because the first increment in HB's proposal calls for no fee for the "First $5,000,000," the Court of Appeals says it read HB's proposed fee structure to incorporate marginal rates rather than fixed rates. In other words, instead of looking solely to the total amount of each settlement, plugging that number into the grid, and calculating the fee as a flat percentage, the district court should have treated each settlement as entitling HB to 0% for the first $5,000,000, 14% for the next $20,000,000, 13% for the next $25,000,000, and so on. Using these marginal rates, HB would be entitled to $22,205,000, which is $3,650,000 less than the figure arrived at by the district court. The Court of Appeals says this $22,205,000 figure is the proper "starting point" from which the district court should have begun its analysis, and the court was required to "provide an adequate explanation for any variance." Because HB's bid to become class counsel incorporated marginal rates rather than fixed rates in its fee structure, the Court of Appeals vacates the district court's order awarding HB $31,026,000 in attorneys' fees and remand to the district court to recalculate the award using the proper starting point of $22,205,000. IV. Mr. Erwin's final challenge to the district court's fee award concerns the factors considered by the district court in its decision to vary upward from HB's fee proposal. He contends that, contrary to the Court of Appeals' cautionary language in ODD I, the district court impermissibly justified its upward departure based on circumstances contemplated at the time of the bid. On this point, Erwin misses the mark, the Court of Appeals holds. The district court took care to confine the scope of its analysis to factors the Court of Appeals indicated could properly be considered in ODD I. In particular, the court pointed to the considerable risk of the litigation. In ODD I, the Court of Appeals made clear that the subsequent summary judgment in favor of the non-settling defendants "amply supported [the district court's] determination that this litigation was very risky" and was a factor that could be considered. The Court of Appeals also notes that it is also readily apparent that HB obtained excellent results in light of the ultimate resolution of the litigation. By the time the IPP class was deemed ineligible to recover any damages, HB had already secured $205,000,000 via settlement agreements. In light of the subsequent summary judgment ruling affirmed on appeal, the district court was free to give greater weight to litigation risk, and this factor provided strong support justifying a 20% upward departure from HB's bid amount. V. The district court's order is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The parties will bear their own costs. Christen, Circuit Judge, dissents. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/27vs48vv from Leagle.com. SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in Illinois Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2022, that between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned "In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation." Sanderson Farms Inc. is into poultry slaughtering and processing. SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2022, that between December 8, 2017 and April 25, 2022, purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought separate suits against 20 poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms and Agri Stats, Inc., which have been consolidated with the other cases. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. Certain of the suits additionally allege related state-law and common-law claims, and related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Four complaints filed on June 12, 2020 also plead allegations of federal bid rigging. Since that time, an additional forty-nine individual actions have been filed, some of which also plead allegations of federal bid rigging. On January 29, 2021, the individual-action plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Those suits filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits. Sanderson Farms Inc. is into poultry slaughtering and processing. SHELTA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shelta, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shelta, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shelta, Inc. -- https://www.sheltahats.com/ -- offers UV rays protection with their high performance sun hats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Technicians ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18367 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide proper sick leave, failure to keep accurate and complete payroll records, failure to pay an additional hour of pay for each meal/rest period not provided, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from employment, and unlawful criminal and financial background checks. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a line service technician. Signature Flight Support LLC is a provider of flight support services based in Orlando, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Blake R. Jones, Esq. Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com blake@crosnerlegal.com sepideh@crosnerlegal.com SOCLEAN INC: Odom Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Public Consulting Group, Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00063 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 2, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00803-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Personal Injury. SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Deakle, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Phone: (601) 544-0631 Fax: (601) 544-0666 Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in Saxon Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the matter entitled SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Petitioner v. LATRICE SAXON, Case No. 21-309 (U.S.), the Supreme Court of the United States affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and holds that Ms. Saxon belongs to a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Latrice Saxon works for Southwest Airlines as a ramp supervisor. Her work frequently requires her to load and unload baggage, airmail, and commercial cargo on and off airplanes that travel across the country. The question presented is whether, under Section of the Federal Arbitration Act, she belongs to a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" that is exempted from the Act's coverage. The Supreme Court holds that she does. I Southwest Airlines moves a lot of cargo. In 2019, Southwest carried the baggage of over 162 million passengers to domestic and international destinations. In total, Southwest transported more than 256 million pounds of passenger, commercial, and mail cargo. To move that cargo, Southwest employs "ramp agents," who physically load and unload baggage, airmail, and freight. It also employs "ramp supervisors," who train and supervise teams of ramp agents. Frequently, ramp supervisors step in to load and unload cargo alongside ramp agents. Ms. Saxon is a ramp supervisor for Southwest at Chicago Midway International Airport. As part of her employment contract, she agreed to arbitrate wage disputes individually. Nevertheless, when Saxon came to believe that Southwest was failing to pay proper overtime wages to her and other ramp supervisors, she brought a putative class action against Southwest under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Southwest sought to enforce its arbitration agreement with Saxon under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, Saxon invoked Section 1 of the FAA, which exempts from the statute's ambit "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Saxon argued that ramp supervisors, like seamen and railroad employees, were an exempt "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The District Court disagreed, holding that only those involved in "actual transportation," and not the mere handling of goods, fell within the exemption (2019 WL 4958247, *7 (ND Ill., Oct. 8, 2019)). The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the act of loading cargo onto a vehicle to be transported interstate is itself commerce, as that term was understood at the time of the FAA's enactment in 1925. Citing Saxon's "uncontroverted declaration" that ramp supervisors at Midway "frequently" load and unload cargo, the Court of Appeals reserved the question "whether supervision of cargo loading alone" would also fall within the FAA's Section 1 exemption. The Seventh Circuit's decision conflicted with an earlier decision of the Fifth Circuit -- Eastus v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., 960 F.3d 207 (2020). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement. II In this case, Justice Thomas notes that the Panel must decide whether Saxon falls within a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The Supreme Court interprets this language according to its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. To discern that ordinary meaning, those words must be read and interpreted in their context, not in isolation. The Supreme Court begins by defining the relevant "class of workers" to which Saxon belongs. Then, the Supreme Court determines whether that class of workers is "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." A First, the parties dispute how to define the relevant "class of workers." Saxon argues that because air transportation as an industry is engaged in interstate commerce, "airline employees" constitute a "class of workers" covered by Section 1. Southwest, by contrast, maintains that Section 1 exempts classes of workers based on their conduct, not their employer's, and the relevant class, therefore, includes only those airline employees, who are actually engaged in interstate commerce in their day-to-day work. The Court of Appeals rejected Saxon's industrywide approach, and so does the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has observed before, the FAA speaks of workers, not employees or servants. The word "workers" directs the interpreter's attention to "the performance of work." Saxon is, therefore, a member of a "class of workers" based on what she does at Southwest, not what Southwest does generally, Justice Thomas opines. On that point, Southwest has not meaningfully contested that ramp supervisors like Saxon frequently load and unload cargo. Thus, as relevant here, the Supreme Court accepts that Saxon belongs to a class of workers, who physically load and unload cargo on and off airplanes on a frequent basis. B Second, the parties dispute whether that class of airplane cargo loaders is "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" under Section 1. The Supreme Court holds that it is. Justice Thomas holds that any class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders falls within Section 1's exemption. Taken together, Justice Thomas points out that these canons showed that Section 1 exempted only contracts with transportation workers, rather than all employees, from the FAA. And, while it did not provide a complete definition of "transportation worker," the Supreme Court indicated that any such worker must at least play a direct and "necessary role in the free flow of goods" across borders. Put another way, transportation workers must be actively "engaged in transportation" of those goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce. In sum, text and context point to the same place: Workers, like Saxon, who load cargo on and off airplanes belong to a "class of workers in foreign or interstate commerce," Justice Thomas holds. III Both Saxon and Southwest proffer arguments that disagree with portions of the Supreme Court's analysis. Neither of them convinces the Supreme Court to change course. A For her part, Saxon thinks that the Supreme Court should define the "class of workers" as all airline employees, who carry out the "customary work" of the airline, rather than cargo loaders more specifically. That larger class of employees potentially includes everyone from cargo loaders to shift schedulers to those who design Southwest's website. Ms. Saxon's attempted invocation of ejusdem generis is unavailing because it proceeds from the flawed premise that "seamen" and "railroad employees" are both industrywide categories, Justice Thomas opines. The Supreme Court, therefore, rejects Saxon's argument that Section 1 exempts virtually all employees of major transportation providers. B While Ms. Saxon defines the relevant class of workers too broadly, Justice Thomas finds that Southwest construes Section 1's catchall category--"any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"--too narrowly. The airline argues that only workers, who physically move goods or people across foreign or international boundaries--pilots, ship crews, locomotive engineers, and the like--are "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." So construed, Justice Thomas notes, Section 1 does not exempt cargo loaders because they do not physically accompany freight across state or international boundaries. Southwest's reading rests on three arguments. None persuades the Supreme Court. First, taking its turn with ejusdem generis, the airline argues that because "seamen" are "employed on board a vessel," McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 346 (1991), and "'railroad employees' is somewhat ambiguous," the Supreme Court should limit the exempted class of railroad employees to those who are physically on board a locomotive as it crosses state lines. Second, Southwest argues that cargo loading is similar to other activities that the Supreme Court has found to lack a necessary nexus to interstate commerce in other contexts. Third, Southwest falls back on statutory purpose. It observes that Section 2 of the FAA broadly requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements in any "contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce," while Section 1 provides only a narrower exemption. To be sure, the Supreme Court has relied on statutory purpose to inform its interpretation of the FAA when that "purpose is readily apparent from the FAA's text," citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). But the Supreme Court is not "free to pave over bumpy statutory texts in the name of more expeditiously advancing a policy goal." Here, Section 1's plain text suffices to show that airplane cargo loaders are exempt from the FAA's scope, and the Supreme Court has no warrant to elevate vague invocations of statutory purpose over the words Congress chose. * * * Latrice Saxon frequently loads and unloads cargo on and off airplanes that travel in interstate commerce. She, therefore, belongs to a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" to which Section 1's exemption applies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 6, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfx5264 from Leagle.com. SPLUNK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------ Splunk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that it is facing a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The initial complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial guidance and asserted a putative class period of October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020. On March 16, 2021, the court appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead plaintiff counsel in the case. On June 7, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which expands the putative class period to run from March 26, 2020 to December 2, 2020 and alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding their marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In July 27, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 21, 2022, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Splunk Inc. provides innovative cloud services and licensed software solutions that deliver and operationalize insights from the data generated by digital systems. STARKIST CO: To Appeal 9th Cir. Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Wheeler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that StarKist still has to fight off a horde of angry tuna customers in a class action even though nearly a third of the class may not have actually paid more for their chicken of the sea. In affirming a trial court's decision to certify three classes -- consumers, restaurants, and large retailers -- to sue the tuna supplier and its parent company for violating antitrust laws, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created the appearance of a division among the lower courts over just how to handle people in prospective class actions who aren't injured. How many is too many to OK a class? It's an important question because setting such a limit would make it harder to bring lawsuits as a class and hold corporations accountable when they hurt people. That's why it's in corporations' best interest to argue for one. Kate Spelman, who co-chairs the consumer law practice group at Jenner & Block and defends companies in these types of disputes, said the question that's up in the air right now is whether courts should recognize as a general rule that more than a minimal number of uninjured plaintiffs in and of itself precludes class certification. The Ninth Circuit wasn't willing to do it. The appeals court said it's up to the trial court to decide if the issues that are going to be litigated are predominantly common to all the class members. Meaning, can the jury decide all the class members' claims based on common evidence? Predominance is one of the many requirements for class certification. Jonathan Rubin, a partner at MoginRubin LLP who represents antitrust plaintiffs, said class actions give people an opportunity to correct wrongs that on an aggregate level are substantial, but on an individual level wouldn't be worth the legal expense to pursue. "Nobody's going to bring a claim for a $3 overcharge except if the $3 overcharge happened 1.4 million times," he said. "We would not want corporations to be able to cause widespread harm with no legal consequences, and that's really the only method by which many claims are going to be brought." Class actions though rarely go to trial. They often settle once a court certifies the class. As Judge Kenneth Lee, who was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump, noted in his dissenting opinion, companies settle settle even if they have a meritorious defense because their potential liability at trial could be enormous, maybe even catastrophic. This case is unique because Bumble Bee, StarKist, and three tuna industry executives already pleaded guilty to conspiracy after the US Justice Department investigation found evidence of a price-fixing scheme among the StarKist, Bumble Bee Foods LLC, and Chicken of the Sea International. Bumble Bee's former CEO was convicted by a jury of a conspiracy to fix prices and Chicken of the Sea chose to cooperate with the Justice Department in exchange for leniency. It's clear these companies colluded to increase the price of tuna, but that doesn't mean all the purchasers involved in the class action were actually injured by the alleged conspiracy. Gregory Garre, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP who defended StarKist Co. and its owner Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd., said the tuna purchasers suing vary widely in terms of their size, negotiating power, store type, and how they typically buy tuna. "You can't claim there's a common question or way in which people were impacted," he said But Rubin said if there are too many uninjured people in a class, that doesn't mean there's a predominance issue and the class shouldn't be certified. The class just needs to be better defined. "If it's not well defined, the thing is to tweak the class definition not throw everyone out of court, which is what the de minimis rule does," he said. Garre said his clients are planning to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. Though a division among lower courts typically makes a case more attractive to the justices, not everyone agrees the April 8 decision created one. "No court has said there's a maximum, numerically, of uninjured class members or proportion of uninjured class members beyond which certification may not be granted nor has anyone ever said there is a floor below which certification must always be granted," said Thomas Burt, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein. who represented the consumer plaintiffs. Judge Sandra Ikuta, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, wrote in the court's majority ruling that neither the District of Columbia nor the First Circuit adopted the rule that there can be no more than a minimal number of uninjured members in a class for a class to be certified as some claimed they did. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could definitively create one. Rubin said that's what corporations want. It's in their interest to set up rules that make it more difficult for people to bring class actions. "If they can try to put a roadblock to certification and say this is in the interest of efficient and proper administration of the rules of civil procedure, they'll do it but it really isn't," he said. "It has nothing to do with proper rules of civil procedure and has everything to do with cutting back the number of class actions." [GN] STERICYCLE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment vs. Daniel --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP DANIEL v. STERICYCLE INC. and SHRED-IT USA LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad entered an order that: 1. The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is denied; 2. The Plaintiff's amended motion to conditionally certify collective action is granted in part and denied in part; and 3. Within 15 days of this Order, the Defendants shall provide Plaintiff a list with names current and former employees at Defendants' Raleigh Branch that would otherwise be an opt-in plaintiff for purposes of the collective action but for which the Defendants assert have valid arbitration agreements such that they are not subject to receive notice of the collective action, including a copy of the relevant arbitration agreements; 4. Within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer about the validity of any arbitration agreements, which if any of the names on the list should receive notice, the notice form, opt-in form, and processes and procedures for notice; 5. Within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall conduct an Initial Attorneys' Conference; and 6. Within 60 days of this Order, the parties shall submit to the Court for approval a proposed notice form, proposed opt-in form, proposed processes and procedures for notice, and a Certificate of Initial Attorneys Conference with a proposed discovery plan. The parties must highlight any disagreements requiring further decision from the Court, including as to who should receive notice. Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services for recalled and expired goods. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2AxSV at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA SAMPSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10284-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon A. King entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- The time within which to seek July 1, 2022 amendments to the pleadings or to add new parties will expire on: -- All affirmative expert reports March 31, 2023 on class certification and disclosures pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be served upon counsel for Defendants no later than: -- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts May 15, 2023 in support of class certification shall be completed by: -- All rebuttal expert reports on June 27, 2023 class certification and disclosures pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Defendants shall be served upon counsel for Plaintiffs no later than: -- Depositions of Defendants' August 1, 2023 experts in opposition to class certification shall be completed by: -- Class certification motions September 1, 2023 shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than: Subaru of America is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3940vXm at no extra charge.[CC] TALKSPACE INC: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Combined Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, IVAN M. BARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKSPACE, INC., OREN FRANK, MARK HIRSCHHORN, HEC SPONSOR LLC, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, DOUGLAS G. BERGERON, JONATHAN DOBRES, ROBERT GREIFELD, AMY SCHULMAN, THELMA DUGGIN, HUDSON EXECUTIVE CAPITAL LP, and HEC MASTER FUND LP, Defendants, LUIS DIAZ VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKSPACE, INC., OREN FRANK, MARK HIRSCHHORN, HEC SPONSOR LLC, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, DOUGLAS G. BERGERON, JONATHAN DOBRES, ROBERT GREIFELD, AMY SCHULMAN, THELMA DUGGIN, HUDSON EXECUTIVE CAPITAL LP, and HEC MASTER FUND LP, Defendants, Case Nos. 22 Civ. 163 (PGG), 22 Civ. 840 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed: (i) Montague Street Group and Baron as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs; and (ii) Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP will serve as Co-Lead Counsel of the consolidated action. I. Introduction These are two putative class actions brought against certain officers and directors of Talkspace, formerly known as Hudson Executive Investment Corp., and its affiliate companies. Pending before the Court are a number of motions for the consolidation of these cases, the appointment of lead plaintiff, and the approval of lead counsel. After these motions were filed, two of the movants -- Montague Street Group and Ivan M. Baron -- filed an amended motion seeking joint appointment as lead plaintiffs. II. Background Talkspace is a behavioral health company headquartered in New York that offers an online platform for one-on-one therapy with licensed therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. It began as Hudson, a "blank check company" that "raises money from investors in an initial public offering and then uses the proceeds from the offering to acquire a business or operational assets, usually from a private company that does not publicly report financial or operating results." On June 11, 2020, Hudson sold 41.4 million ownership units in an initial public offering. In registration statements filed in May and June 2020, Hudson stated that it intended to acquire a company in the healthcare or financial services industries, and that Hudson and its affiliate companies were well-equipped to conduct the search for such a company. On Jan. 13, 2021, Hudson announced that it had entered into a merger agreement with Talkspace. As a result of the merger, Hudson shareholders were expected to own approximately 50.8% of the common stock of the combined company. On Feb. 2, 2021, Hudson filed a registration statement and draft proxy for the merger, which became effective on May 28, 2021. On June 17, 2021, Hudson shareholders voted to approve the merger at a special shareholders meeting. The merger was consummated on June 22, 2021, and Hudson changed its name to "Talkspace, Inc." On Aug. 9, 2021, Talkspace issued a press release announcing the company's second quarter 2021 financial results, and held an earnings call. On Nov. 15, 2021, Talkspace issued a press release and held an earnings call concerning the company's third quarter 2021 financial results. Its financial results were less favorable than the company had anticipated, and its stock price dropped by 36.28%. By Dec. 30, 2021, Talkspace's common stock was trading 80% below the price at the time of the merger. The first of the instant cases -- Baron v. Talkspace, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 163 (PGG) was filed on Jan. 7, 2022. Valdez v. Talkspace, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 840 (PGG) was filed on Jan. 31, 2022. In both actions, the Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Defendants' alleged materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the proxy statement issued in connection with the June 22, 2021 merger of Hudson and Talkspace. In Valdez, the Plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for Defendants' materially false and misleading statements or omissions in the period between June 11, 2020 and Nov. 15, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Pending before the Court are a number of motions -- all filed on March 8, 2022 seeking consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and designation of lead counsel. III. Discussion A. Consolidation Given the similarities between the two complaints' factual allegations and legal claims -- and the fact that consolidation is unopposed -- Judge Gardephe holds that consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is appropriate. The actions will be referred to collectively as In re Talkspace, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 22 Civ. 163 (PGG) (the "Consolidated Talkspace Class Action"). The Clerk of Court will file a copy of the Order in the separate file for each of the captioned Talkspace class action cases. Unless otherwise ordered, future filings in any Talkspace class action case consolidated will be filed and docketed only under docket number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG). All counsel who have entered appearances in the above-captioned class action cases will be deemed to have entered an appearance in the Consolidated Talkspace Class Action under docket number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG). The counsel is directed to alert the Clerk of Court to the filing or transfer of any case that might properly be consolidated as part of this litigation. Any class action involving substantially related questions of law and fact hereafter filed in or transferred to this Court will be consolidated under the master file number assigned to the case. Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Talkspace Class Action under docket number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG) will bear the following caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE TALKSPACE, INC. SECURITIES 22 Civ. 163 (PGG) LITIGATION." The Court's consolidation order does not make any person, firm, or corporation a party to any action in which the person or entity has not been named, served, or added as such in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff The following parties have moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, and for selection of lead counsel: (1) Montague Street Group,2 represented by Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP; (2) Robert Thewes, represented by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; (3) Yirong Xu, represented by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.; (4) Eric D. Johnson and Luis Diaz Valdez, represented by Pomerantz LLP; (5) Jason Hendeles, represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; and (6) Ivan M. Baron, represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. On March 22, 2022, Movants Johnson and Valdez, and Movant Thewes, filed notices of non-opposition to the competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff, recognizing that they do not have the largest financial interest in the litigation within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. That same day, Movants Montague Street Group and Baron filed a stipulation stating that they are willing to serve as co-lead plaintiffs in order to "avoid a protracted battle for Lead Plaintiff," and to "allow their combined resources to provide the best possible outcome for the Class." Movant Hendeles has made a submission asserting that he suffered the third largest loss. Movant Xu opposes the appointment of Montague Street Group and Baron, whether individually or as co-lead plaintiffs. The instant cases present two overlapping classes: (1) a class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Talkspace securities during the Class Period of June 11, 2020 to Nov. 15, 2021 (the "Section 10(b) Class"); and (2) a class of those who held Talkspace securities as of the May 19, 2021 record date and were eligible to vote on the proposed merger at the June 17, 2021 shareholders meeting (the "Section 14(a) Class"). Judge Gardephe concludes that Montague Street Group and Baron possess the largest financial interest in the case, and that Xu has not rebutted the PSLRA's presumption in favor of Montague Street Group and Baron serving as co-lead plaintiffs. Moreover, Montague Street Group and Baron allege claims typical of other class members. With respect to adequacy of representation, Montague Street Group's counsel -- Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP ("RKS") -- and Baron's counsel -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- have been appointed as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous securities class actions. And, Xu has not shown that Montague Street Group's or Baron's claims are subject to unique defenses or that they are otherwise not suitable to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. C. Appointment of Lead Counsel Montague Street Group and Baron have, respectively, selected RKS and Robbins Geller to serve as their counsel. Montague Street Group has submitted a declaration and RKS firm resume providing a detailed description of the educational backgrounds and legal experience of many of the attorneys at the firm, as well as a list of securities class actions in which the firm has served or is now serving as lead or co-lead counsel. RKS and Robbins Geller are also currently serving as co-counsel in a securities class action pending in the Eastern District of New York. Judge Gardephe concludes that RKS and Robbins Geller are qualified to serve as co-lead counsel in this matter. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Gardephe consolidates the captioned actions, as well as any pending, subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions that include claims related to those asserted in the captioned actions, for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) under the docket number of the lead case: 22 Civ. 163 (PGG). Filings in the consolidated action will bear the caption In re Talkspace, Inc. Securities Litigation. Montague Street Group's and Baron's joint motion for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and for selection of Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel is granted. Montague Street Group's and Baron's individual motions are denied as moot. All competing motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions. A consolidated class action complaint is to be filed by July 1, 2022. By July 14 2022, the Defendants will submit a joint letter to the Court stating whether they intend to answer or move to dismiss. In the event that the Defendants intend to move to dismiss, they will propose a briefing schedule that has been discussed with the Plaintiffs' counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2axf9wfm from Leagle.com. TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Stallworth FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MELINDA STALLWORTH, Plaintiff v. TERRILL OUTSOURCING GROUP, LLC d/b/a SUPERLATIVE RM, and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21 C 4332 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff Stallworth is bringing a putative class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against the Defendants, debt collectors, for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Her specific allegation is that the Defendants employed a third-party vendor to communicate with the Plaintiff concerning collection of a debt without her permission, which is alleged to violate Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff originally filed her suit in state court after which the Defendants removed it to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), on the basis of a federal question jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has filed the Motion to Remand, arguing that there is no case or controversy because she is only seeking statutory damages which can be recovered in state court. She has stipulated that she has not suffered any actual damages. The Plaintiff says, correctly, that the Defendants, being proponents of federal jurisdiction, have burden to establish federal jurisdiction. In order to do so, the Defendants must demonstrate that (1) the Plaintiff has suffered an actual or eminent, concrete, and particularized injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) the likelihood the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Removal jurisdiction is narrowly construed, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of remand. The Defendants argue that the Supreme Court in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021), has held that certain intangible harms to the debtor resulting from an FDCPA violation, even though they do not arise from a specific detrimental act taken by the debtor, can constitute a concrete injury justifying federal jurisdiction. According to TransUnion, if a plaintiff can establish that the debt collector's violation of the FDCPA has a close relationship to a wrongful act that has traditionally been recognized as a basis for a tort action under common law, such violation can provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. Such intangible harms may include, for example, harm to one's reputation, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion, which closely approximate the common law torts of defamation and invasion of privacy. The Defendants cite as further authority an Eleventh Circuit case that has since been withdrawn, Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2021), opinion vacated and superseded on rehearing, 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir 2021), rehearing en banc granted and opinion vacated, and several Northern District of Illinois Court decisions that followed it, which found federal jurisdiction arising from alleged violations of Section 1692c(b) because they have analogs in the federal causes of action based on invasion of privacy. In summary, Judge Leinenweber holds that there is a debt collector who utilizes a third party to mail Dunning letters. Thus, the only individual having access to the debt information is the individual who created and mailed the Dunning letter. This ministerial activity is no different from what a lawyer's secretary normally performs. The fact that a secretary is an employee rather than a contractual worker appears wholly irrelevant. In fact, many lawyers hire contract secretarial services, as well as court reporters. Suppose an attorney who is employed to collect a large debt is forced to file suit against the debtor and in course of the proceeding takes a deposition of the debtor before a court reporter, who is virtually always, like the third-party vendor in the case, a third-party vendor. Court reporters, like the third-party vendor in this case, are not covered by the permissible list of persons to whom the debt information may be disclosed. The final distinguishing feature of the case from Hunstein is the unusual alignment of the parties to the Motion. Normally, the debtor is the one seeking to establish an injury in order to bring the FDCPA action in federal court. It is the debt collector who is seeking to stay out of federal court by denigrating the debtor's alleged injury, like Spokeo, TransUnion, and Hunstein tried to do. Moreover, it is the debtors who cite the importance of the private attorney general role in enforcing the FDCPA in criticizing Spokeo and its progeny. In any event the Plaintiff by her own Motion seeks to avoid federal jurisdiction. By forgoing any claim for an injury in fact, she has successfully done so in the case. For these reasons, the Motion to Remand is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc88sst3 from Leagle.com. THERMON GROUP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that in March 2021, it reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff and other defendants in a class action application in the Superior Court of Quebec. In January 2020, the company received service of process in a class action application in the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal, Canada related to certain heating elements previously manufactured by its new business line, Thermon Heating Systems, which is engaged in industrial process heating, focused on the development and production of advanced heating and filtration solutions for industrial and hazardous area applications. In March 2021, it reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff and other defendants to resolve this matter without admitting to any liability; such agreement remains subject to the agreement of the parties on the terms of a definitive settlement agreement. The settlement is subject to, among other things, approval by the Superior Court. Thermon is one a provider of industrial process heating solutions for process industries. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Guardrail Class Action for $56-MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary King, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that a class action settlement has been reached following the seven-year debate about the guardrail end terminals on Missouri's roads. Stueve Siegel Hanson announced on May 31 that an agreement in the amount of $56 million with Fortune 1000 transportation giant Trinity Industries, along with its manufacturing arm, Trinity Highway Products, to remove and replace the four-inch ET Plus guardrail end terminals from Missouri roads. The product is linked to numerous catastrophic and fatal wrecks nationwide. This settlement, according to the release, is believed to be the first successful resolution of product liability claims against Trinity. Stueve Siegel Hanson, representing Jackson County and a certified class of Missouri counties, the City of St. Louis, and the Missouri Department of Transportation, sought the cost of removing and replacing the four-inch ET Plus devices. A study partly funded by the Missouri Department of Transportation raised questions about the safety of the ET-Plus guardrail system. While the system is designed to absorb and dissipate energy from a crash, the study and lawsuits filed by families of crash victims say system failures can send metal through vehicle passenger compartments. The settlement will provide: -- $3.5 million to reimburse class members that have removed and replaced 4-inch ET Plus devices; -- $2.5 million to reimburse class members for the cost of locating 4-inch ET Plus devices on their roads; and -- One MASH Type A Guardrail End Terminal ($2,000 value) plus a flat payment of $1,700 for each of the estimated 10,000+ 4-inch ET Plus devices currently on class members roads ($38 million value). Representing the class action suit initiated in 2015 were attorneys Patrick J. Stueve, Bradley T. Wilders and Alex T. Ricke. "When Jackson County filed this lawsuit, the goal was to recover the funds necessary to remove and replace these dangerous devices from Missouri roads," said Stueve, lead counsel for the class. "That's exactly what this settlement provides. This settlement reflects the type of complete victory typically only won through a jury trial." After obtaining class certification, the firm successfully defeated Trinity's motion for summary judgement, a motion to decertify the class, a petition to appeal the denial of class decertification, and several other interlocutory appeals. The parties reached a settlement in February on the verge of a class action trial set for April 2022. The settlement was preliminarily approved on May 30. [GN] UNITED STATES: Murbach Files Suit for Workplace Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE MURBACH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PAUL NAKASONE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01308-AAQ (D. Md., May 31, 2022) seeks to address Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's rights under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Plaintiff Murbach has bilateral and profound deafness, and he has been deaf since birth. He depends on American Sign Language, facial expressions, and physical cues to communicate with others, and relies on regular vibrations or flashes of light because of his deafness. Mr. Murbach began employment with the National Security Agency in 2016 in Fort Meade, Maryland. According to the complaint, during Mr. Murbach's first two years of employment with the Agency, the Agency's Office of Reasonable Accommodations and Accessibility (ORAA) failed to provide reasonable accommodation in interpreting services, and he worked with ORAA to mitigate the failure to provide needed interpreting services for years. In addition, the Agency utilized methods of communication that had the effect of subjecting deaf and hard of hearing employees to discrimination on the basis of handicap and that had the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing their ability to complete work assignments or participate fully in work meetings and conferences. The Agency further failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to afford conditions, privileges, and benefits of employment and accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing employees, the suit alleges. Defendant Paul Nakasone, General, United States Army, Director, National Security Agency, is a federal agency charged with providing "guidance, products and services to protect classified and unclassified national security systems against exploitation from interception, unauthorized access, or related technical intelligence threats."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Branch, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BRANCH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 820 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 785-2805 Facsimile: (202) 785-0289 E-mail: davidbranch@dbranchlaw.com UPSTART INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Upstart, Inc.: Shareholders who purchased shares of UPST during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27913&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: March 18, 2021 to May 9, 2022 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) as a result, Upstart was experiencing a negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: July 12, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27913&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of UPST during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 12, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] VAXART INC: Court Dismisses Counts II-III in Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE VAXART, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0767-PAF (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss Count II and Count III in their entirety. I. Introduction In May 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic gripped the world, the federal government formed Operation Warp Speed ("OWS") a national program to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. With nearly $10 billion in authorized funds, the objective was to develop and deliver a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine by January 2021. As of May 2020, OWS had selected 14 vaccine candidates, which would then be narrowed to the seven or eight most promising candidates. Those finalists would then go through further testing and clinical trials, followed by large scale production and distribution. Shortly after the OWS statement, news reports revealed the names of some, but not all of the selected vaccine candidates. On June 26, 2020, Vaxart, a small biotechnology company working to develop an oral COVID-19 vaccine, issued a press release headlined: "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine Selected for the U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed." This headline was just that—a headline. It did not tell the whole story. The press release did not state that Vaxart had been selected as one of the seven or eight final vaccine candidates to receive federal funding to develop, manufacture, and potentially distribute its COVID-19 vaccine. Instead, the body of the press release stated that Vaxart had been invited to participate in a non-human, primate, research study funded under the umbrella of resources and initiatives encompassed by OWS. The Plaintiffs are Vaxart stockholders who have alleged that the Company's selection to participate in the non-human primate study should have been disclosed to stockholders in advance of the June 8, 2020 annual meeting of Vaxart stockholders. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Vaxart's selection to participate in the research study was material information that stockholders should have been told prior to their vote at the annual meeting on an amendment to Vaxart's equity incentive plan. They also allege that the Director Defendants were unjustly enriched by hiding this news because the plan amendment, once approved, enabled the directors to issue themselves "spring-loaded" stock options. In an earlier opinion, the Court dismissed breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims concerning the board's amendment of two warrant agreements with a hedge fund that enabled the fund to dispose of its shares more quickly. In the present opinion, the Court considers the remaining breach of fiduciary duty claim concerning the amendment to the equity incentive plan and the unjust enrichment claim concerning compensation decisions made before and after stockholders approved the plan amendment. II. Background A. The Parties Plaintiffs Cynthia Jaquith and Paul Bergeron have been Vaxart stockholders since April 2020. Plaintiff Kenny Galjour alleges to have been a Vaxart stockholder "at all relevant times." They are collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs." Nominal Defendant Vaxart is a Delaware corporation based in San Francisco, California. The Company is a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on developing oral vaccines. Vaxart is the result of a 2018 reverse merger between Vaxart, Inc., then a privately held company ("Private Vaxart"), and publicly traded Aviragen Therapeutics, Inc. As a result of the Merger, Private Vaxart became a subsidiary of Aviragen and Aviragen changed its name to Vaxart. Certain Aviragen and Private Vaxart directors continued on after the Merger as directors of the post-Merger parent company ("Vaxart"), including three of the named defendants in the case. Vaxart's common stock trades on the Nasdaq stock market. Defendants Steven Boyd and Keith Maher joined the Vaxart board of directors in October 2019. Boyd is the Chief Investment Officer and Maher is a Managing Director of defendant Armistice Capital LLC, a hedge fund focused on the health and consumer sectors. Armistice was a Vaxart stockholder from Sept. 26, 2019, until at least June 29, 2020, the date of its last publicly reported trade before the filing of the Complaint. Boyd and Maher are together the "Armistice Directors" and, together with Armistice, the "Armistice Defendants." Defendant Wouter Latour is the Chairman of the Vaxart Board. Latour served as a director and CEO of Private Vaxart since October 2011 and September 2011, respectively, through the Merger, and he has continued to serve as a director of Vaxart since then. He also continued to serve as the CEO of Vaxart since the Merger until his resignation on June 14, 2020. Defendant Andrei Floroiu joined the Board on April 13, 2020. On June 15, 2020, the Board appointed him to replace Latour as CEO. Defendants Michael Finney, Robert Yedid, and Todd Davis are outside directors of Vaxart. Finney joined the board of Private Vaxart in 2007 and stayed on after the Merger as a Vaxart director. He also served as the CEO of Private Vaxart from 2009 until 2011. Yedid and Davis were appointed to the Vaxart Board in October 2019. Davis served on the Board's Compensation Committee "at all times relevant thereto." Anne M. VanLent was a director of Private Vaxart from 201324 until the Merger and stayed on as a Vaxart director until June 8, 2020.25 VanLent was not nominated for reelection at the 2020 annual meeting of Vaxart stockholders. Latour, Boyd, Floroiu, Davis, Finney, Maher, Yedid, and VanLent are together referred to in the Opinion as the "Director Defendants." B. The Action On Sept. 8, 2020, Plaintiff Kenny Galjour filed his complaint. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs Cynthia Jaquith and Paul Bergeron filed their complaint. The Court of Chancery consolidated the actions on Nov. 12, 2020, and the Plaintiffs designated the Jaquith-Bergeron complaint as Cthe operative complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss. On Nov. 30, 2021, it issued a Memorandum Opinion, corrected on Dec. 1, 2021, dismissing Counts I, IV and V. Thereafter, it requested supplemental briefing as to two issues related to Counts II and III. The parties completed briefing on Feb. 4, 2022. C. The California Actions 1. The California State Court Action On Aug. 4, 2020, other Vaxart stockholders initiated litigation against Floroiu, Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, Boyd, and Maher (the "California Defendants") in the California Superior Court in San Mateo County (the "California Litigation"). On Nov. 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the California Litigation filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, relating to alleged "spring-loaded" stock option grants. On March 15, 2021, the California Superior Court granted the California Defendants' demurrer, without prejudice and with leave to replead. On June 17, 2021, the plaintiffs in the California action filed a Third Amended Complaint. On April 26, 2022, the California Court sustained the California Defendants' demurrers without leave to amend as to all claims asserted against Armistice and the unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting claims against the Armistice Directors relating to the Warrant Amendments. The California Court has deferred ruling on the remaining claims pending the Court of Chancery's decision. 2. The Federal Securities Actions On Aug. 24, 2020, a securities fraud action was initiated by a Vaxart stockholder in California federal court against the Company, Floroiu, Latour, and the Armistice Defendants. The case was consolidated with several other similar cases, and on Jan. 29, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint adding Yedid, Davis, and Finney, and two Vaxart officers, Sean Tucker and Margaret Echerd, as defendants. On Dec. 22, 2021, the Court of Chancery dismissed the claims against Armistice but denied the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint as to the other defendants (the "Order"). On Oct. 23, 2020, another Vaxart stockholder commenced a securities class action against Armistice, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd., Boyd, and Vaxart (as nominal defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff sought the disgorgement of all profits realized by the Defendants, in violation of Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, through the Warrant Amendments. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Warrant Amendments were not so substantial and material as to constitute a purchases of securities within the meaning of the statute. On March 29, 2022, the court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the Warrant Amendments were "tantamount to the purchase of new securities" as they enabled the defendants to more expeditiously exercise the warrants and to hold significantly more stock while executing them. III. Analysis Count II is a direct claim alleging the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose Vaxart's selection to participate in the Research Study prior to the stockholder vote on the Plan Amendment. Count III asserts that Floroiu, Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, and VanLent were unjustly enriched through their receipt of "stock options whose value they knew would be inflated by the OWS announcement." A. Count II The Court of Chancery opines that the Complaint contains nothing beyond conclusory allegations that Vaxart's OWS selection to participate in a preliminary non-human primate study, for which the Company is not alleged to have received any funds, would have been material to a stockholder voting on the Plan Amendment. The allegations in the Complaint contrast sharply with the allegations of a federal securities suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In that case, the plaintiffs allege that Vaxart and its officers "deliberately crafted a press release designed to make it seem as if the company had achieved something significant—a trough of federal funding through Warp Speed—when in fact it had accomplished nothing of the sort." The claims in that case allege not that the Company's selection to participate in the Research Study was material, but rather that the Company's press release announcing this fairly pedestrian event "created the materially misleading impression that Vaxart stood at the precipice of pioneering a successful coronavirus vaccine." By contrast, the Court of Chancery finds that the Plaintiffs in the present case have taken the opposite approach, alleging that Vaxart's invitation to participate in the Research Study was, in fact, material information. The Complaint lacks non-conclusory allegations that the invitation to participate in the Research Study, which was subject to further negotiation, was information that was material to a stockholder voting to increase the number of awards available under the Plan. There are no facts alleged to support the conclusory allegation that on or before June 8, 2020, the Director Defendants had "full knowledge of the inflationary effect the OWS selection would have on the value of the Board's option grants." Nor are there facts to support the conclusion that on June 8, 2020 the Board "knew that public disclosure" of the Company's selection to participate in the non-human primate study "would lead to Vaxart's stock price skyrocketing." The Complaint acknowledges that stockholders were aware of Vaxart's publicly disclosed efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, weeks, even months before the Annual Meeting. This included the April 2020 announcement that Vaxart's "COVID-19 vaccine candidates had produced promising results in preclinical, nonhuman trials." In light of these disclosures, the Complaint fails to allege facts to support a reasonable inference that an invitation to participate in a non-human primate study would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to Vaxart stockholders when deciding how to vote on the Plan Amendment. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed. B. Count III (The Unjust Enrichment Claims) Count III is a derivative claim against Floroiu, Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, and VanLent for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs maintain that the "Board members were unjustly enriched when they granted themselves 'spring-loaded' options after deceiving stockholders into approving the 2020 Plan at a time when they knew that those options were worth far more than could be reasonably justified. The Court of Chancery opines that the challenge to the compensation decisions made in connection with the CEO transition also fails to state a claim. Those decisions are reflected in the June 13, 2020 unanimous written consent of the directors. As to Latour, the Plaintiffs do not articulate how the decision to permit his options to continue to vest involved spring-loading, at least not in the classic sense of the term. Latour's most recent option award occurred in March 2020. The June 2020 decision did not involve a grant of new options or change in the exercise price. Instead, the Board allowed his existing options to continue vesting as long as he remained on the Board as part of the termination agreement between Latour and the Company, which was permitted under the terms of the Plan. The second decision awarded time-based and performance-based options to Floriou as part of his compensation package as the new CEO. As with the June 8, 2020 compensation decisions, there are no well-pleaded allegations that the Board knowingly spring-loaded Floriou's options based on the invitation to participate in the Research Study. Nor does the Complaint allege that the Board amended Latour's options knowing that the invitation to participate in the Research Study was material information. Although materiality is generally considered an issue of fact, dismissal is appropriate because it is "so obvious that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question" of whether the invitation to participate in the Research Study was material at the time of the June 2020 compensation decisions. It was not. The terms were still being negotiated. There are no well-pleaded allegations that selection for participation in the Research Study was a watershed moment as Plaintiffs assert. Plaintiffs must accept the "crucial reality that Vaxart had been chosen only to participate in a primate study and not to receive a vast influx of federal funds." Count III is dismissed for failure to state a claim as to all of the challenged compensation decisions and for failure to plead demand futility as to the March Awards and the April Awards. IV. Conclusion The motions to dismiss Count II and Count III are granted in their entirety. This conclusion by the Court of Chancery is based on the allegations of the Complaint and how the Plaintiffs have framed their claims. The Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or were unjustly enriched based on a plan to exaggerate the significance of the Company's selection to participate in the Research Study and then to capitalize on the selling or vesting of options at inflated market prices. That is not the Plaintiffs' theory. The Plaintiffs chose to ride with the claims asserted in the operative complaint instead of filing a consolidated complaint. The claims, as pleaded in the Complaint, do not state a claim that the stockholder vote on the Plan Amendment was uninformed or the product of a breach of the duty of disclosure or that Latour, Floroiu, Davis, Finney, Yedid, or VanLent was unjustly enriched. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/57kh5pwc from Leagle.com. Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J. Adams, Daryoush Behbood, POMERANTZ LLP, in New York City; Sascha N. Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV, Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles H. Sangree, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York City; Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP, in New York City; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir Shukurov, FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy Piekarski, THOMPSON HINE, in New York City, Attorneys for Andrei, Wouter W. Latour, Todd Davis, Michael J. Finney, Robert A. Yedid, Anne M. VanLent, and Nominal Defendant Vaxart, Inc. Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D. Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants Steven Boyd, Keith Maher, Armistice Capital, LLC. VENTURE TRANSPORT: Harris Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHNELL HARRIS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENTURE TRANSPORT, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 56-2022-00564747-CU-OE-VTA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03809 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages to piece-rate workers for rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. Venture Transport, LLC is a provider of trucking, warehousing, and logistics services, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com - and – Eric Suits, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 E-mail: esuits@seyfarth.com VIVID SEATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Hidden Fees" ---------------------------------------------------------- Dave Clark, writing for TicketNews, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California alleges Vivid Seats uses "bait-and-switch" tactics, deceiving consumers by showing artificially low prices and then adding fees at the last step of the transaction. Such practices, commonly referred to as "drip pricing" have come increasingly under fire by consumers and regulators alike, and have been subject to lawsuits in the past, including one that closed with Ticketmaster settling with Canada's Competition Bureau for $4.5 million in 2019. The lawsuit was initially filed in Orange County's Superior Court in late April by Brent Dennard, whose complaint centers around an incident he had while shopping for tickets in March. It was transferred to California's Central District Court in late May. In the complaint, Dennard alleges finding a pair of tickets marketed as costing $21 each while browsing the Vivid Seats website. However, the price went from the initially advertised $41 to $59.80 after he had selected the tickets, created an account on the website, entered his billing information, and then proceeded to the final confirmation page. In the complaint, Dennard alleges that Vivid Seats "lures" consumers into purchasing tickets by making them believe they can be purchased for far less than their actual cost. While the complaint does spell out that Dennard realized the fees had been added before clicking through the final purchase agreement, it argues that many consumers would likely miss such added fees when they are added late. "Because Vivid intentionally hides additional fees in a separate link that is not automatically presented to customers as part of the transaction, reasonable consumers are drawn in by deceptively low ticket prices advertised in an initial search, and then proceed through check out without ever becoming aware of the amount of the so-called 'service' and 'electronic transfer' or 'mobile delivery' or 'Flash Seats' fees that have automatically been included in the total price." Others, like Dennard, purchase despite the added fees due to having spent the time and effort adding contact and payment details, allowing the company to "[rake] in millions of dollars" from consumers who are roped in by the "deceptively low ticket prices" shown at first glance, which make true comparison shopping much harder. Vivid Seats is one of the few ticketing companies that continues to only show the full cost of tickets listed on its marketplace at the end of a transaction. While some ticket marketplaces, such as TickPick, MEGASeats and Ticket Club, offer an "all-in" pricing model that shows the full price a consumer will pay up front by default, the majority of other marketplaces have adopted an option where consumers can choose to display prices including estimated fees as their default. TicketNews surveyed the industry and found that almost all allowed for consumers to choose to view all-in prices by the summer of 2021, in the wake of harsh criticism of "drip pricing" from the Federal Trade Commission during the 2019 "That's The Ticket" workshop on the industry. Only AXS and Vivid Seats did not allow for the default view to show fees. More recently, NYU academics petitioned the FTC to ban drip pricing altogether, publishing an essay asking for regulatory action in the New York Times last August, which was followed by a period of public comment where consumers were able to submit their thoughts as the regulator considers next steps. This lawsuit seeks to form a class action comprised of all consumers in California who have purchased tickets from Vivid Seats in the last four years. [GN] W.B. MASON: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Jablonski Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE JABLONSKI and GISELLE VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. W.B. MASON CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03297-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York Labor Law, breach of contract, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment by failing to properly pay earned commissions. Ms. Jablonski and Ms. Vargas were employed by the Defendant as account executives from mid-2012 through in or about September of 2020 and from mid-2013 through in or about February of 2022. W.B. Mason Co., Inc. is an American business products company headquartered in Brockton, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. Lease, Esq. KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C. 3331 Street Road Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 639-0801 WAAWAATESI LLC: Johnson Small Loans Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUSTIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAAWAATESI LLC, d/b/a GREENLINE LOAN; JESSI LORENZO, and JOSEPH WILDCAT, Case No. 57-CV-2022-900051.00, was removed from the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on June 3, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Alabama assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00336-RAH-JTA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Alabama Small Loans Act. Waawaatesi LLC, doing business as Greenline Loan, is a tribal corporation, with its place of business located in Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John N. Bolus, Esq. Maynard Cooper Gale 1901 Sixth Ave. N, Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1025 Facsimile: (205) 714-6325 E-mail: JBolus@maynardcooper.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hostetler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennesse ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel D. Hostetler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00199-CEA-JEM (E.D. Tenn., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart Inc. asked a federal judge to dismiss a data breach suit again, arguing the retailer can't be liable for the breach that compromised the personal information of 25,000 Walmart pharmacy patients because the information was on CaptureRx servers, and not Walmart's. Willard Bays filed a would-be class action against Walmart and the CaptureRx pharmacy company, alleging they didn't reasonably protect and monitor customer data, which led to the exposure of their contact information, Social Security numbers, account numbers, insurance information, and medical data. CaptureRx has since been dismissed from the suit. [GN] WARDEN CARVER: Workman Class Certification Bid Nixed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WORKMAN v. WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00535 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying the Plaintiff's "motion requesting class certification Pursuant to section 23," filed on September 22, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mtyKKQ at no extra charge.[CC] WARTBURG COLLEGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Warner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY WARNER v. WARTBURG COLLEGE, Case No. 21-cv-2029-CJW (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Roberts entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unresisted motion for modification of the Court's scheduling order and request for settlement conference as follows: -- Plaintiff's Expert: May 31, 2022 -- Defendant's Expert: July 15, 2022 -- Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert: August 15, 2022 -- Plaintiff shall file class July 15, 2022 certification motion and expert reports: -- The Defendant shall respond August 15, 2022 to class certification and expert reports: -- The Plaintiff shall file September 12, 2022 reply brief and rebuttal expert reports: -- Completion of Discovery: July 19, 2022 -- Dispositive motions: August 12, 2022 Wartburg College is a four-year private liberal arts college in Waverly, Iowa. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xy62yZ at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON DC: Jefferson Files Suit in D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government of the District of Columbia, et al. The case is styled as Dominique Jefferson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Government of the District of Columbia, Jeanette Myrick, Case No. 1:22-cv-01436-RC (D.D.C., May 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. The Government of the District of Columbia -- https://dc.gov/ -- operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the Mayor and thirteen-member Council.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, Esq. CLAIBORNELAW 717 D. Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 824-0700 Email: claibornelaw@gmail.com WASHINGTON: Wise Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Vaccination Mandate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Travis Wise, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TRAVIS JAY WISE, CHELSIE BYROADS, ANDILEE JORDAN, DANIEL BETZ, DAVID CHARBONNEAU, CHERYL BERNARD, DESIRAE KING, JERRY LEASE, JORDAN LOZARO, LAURECE RUST, MARY DRASS, NADIA FEDOROVA, TERRY DUNN, RITA WALDO, LEVI HINES, CHRISTOPHER MOORE, SHELLEY ENGLE, THOMAS FORSYTH, and TRAVIS YEAGER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DONALD CLINTSMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; CHIEF BRIAN SCHAEFFER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE SPOKANE FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF JOHN BATISTE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL; AND ROGER MILLAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00288-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Spokane. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 22, 2021 the lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful COVID-19 vaccination mandate in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 21-41.2 on September 27, 2021 wherein he prohibited any person from working in the fields of healthcare, education, and state employment if that person has not been fully vaccinated by October 18th. The complaint alleges that Governor Inslee is acting beyond his power and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause that reads, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." On April 27, 2022, Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an Order granting Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The claims asserted against State Defendants Inslee, Clintsman, Batiste, and Millar, as well as the claims asserted against Defendant Schaeffer, were DISMISSED with prejudice. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order. The appellate case is captioned as Travis Wise, et al. v. Jay Inslee, et al., Case No. 22-35426, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 1, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Cheryl Bernard, Daniel Betz, Chelsea Byroads, David Charbonneau, Mary Drass, Terry Dunn, Shelley Engle, Nadia Fedorova, Thomas Forsyth, Levi Hines, Andilee Jordan, Desirae King, Jerry Lease, Jordan Lozaro, Christopher Moore, Grant Rodkey, Laurece Rust, Rita Waldo, Travis Jay Wise, Jacob Wolfe and Travis Yeager Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 8, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 27, 2022; -- Transcript is due on July 26, 2022; -- Appellants Cheryl Bernard, Daniel Betz, Chelsea Byroads, David Charbonneau, Mary Drass, Terry Dunn, Shelley Engle, Nadia Fedorova, Thomas Forsyth, Levi Hines, Andilee Jordan, Desirae King, Jerry Lease, Jordan Lozaro, Christopher Moore, Grant Rodkey, Laurece Rust, Rita Waldo, Travis Jay Wise, Jacob Wolfe and Travis Yeager opening brief is due on September 6, 2022; -- Appellees John Batiste, Donald Clintsman, Jay R. Inslee, Roger Millar and Brian Schaeffer answering brief is due on October 4, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TRAVIS JAY WISE, CHELSEA BYROADS, ANDILEE JORDAN, DANIEL BETZ, DAVID CHARBONNEAU, CHERYL BERNARD, DESIRAE KING, JERRY LEASE, JORDAN LOZARO, LAURECE RUST, MARY DRASS, NADIA FEDOROVA, TERRY DUNN, RITA WALDO, LEVI HINES, CHRISTOPHER MOORE, SHELLEY ENGLE, JACOB WOLFE, GRANT RODKEY, THOMAS FORSYTH, and TRAVIS YEAGER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Grant Wolf, Esq. WOLF LEGAL GROUP 400 S Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99204 Telephone: (502) 681-8655 Defendants-Appellees GOVERNOR JAY R. INSLEE, in his official capacity; DONALD CLINTSMAN, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Department of Social and Health Services; CHIEF BRIAN SCHAEFFER, in his official capacity as the Chief of the Spokane Fire Department; CHIEF JOHN BATISTE, in his offical capacity as the Chief of the Washington State Patrol; and ROGER MILLAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Transportation, are represented by: Zachary J. Pekelis, Esq. Kai Smith, Esq. PACIFICA LAW GROUP, LLP 1191 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 602-1229 - and - Cristina Sepe, Esq. AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEATTLE) 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 Telephone: (206) 342-6409 - and - J. Chad Mitchell, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC 1030 N Center Parkway, Suite 308 Kennewick, WA 99336 Telephone: (509) 735-5053 WELCH FOODS: Seeks to Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Clevenger ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN CLEVENGER and DAVID BLOOM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, THE PROMOTION IN MOTION COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01859-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants move ex parte for leave to file a short Sur-Reply in response to Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification. The purpose of the Sur-Reply is to respond to two new arguments presented by Plaintiffs for the first time on Reply, specifically: (1) Plaintiffs' counsel, Anthony Lanza's, claim that the reason Costco produced no records of consumer complaints for Costco Fruit Snacks was due to a purported oral conversation he had with Costco's counsel claiming Costco does not track such records; and (2) Plaintiffs' new argument about the potential use of a "table test" to demonstrate the presence of non- functional slack fill in Costco Fruit Snacks to support their purported damages model, based on the amount of alleged non-functional slack fill, and their improper and misleading reliance on the deposition testimony of Christina Dickerson to purportedly support that position. Welch Foods is an American company, headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3toTJ5D at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel S. Silverman, Esq. Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 E-mail: DSSilverman@venable.com BJWeintrop@venable.com WELLS FARGO: District of New Jersey Dismisses Hart Federal Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JANE ANN HART, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 21-14644 (RBK) (D.N.J.). I. Background Plaintiff Hart took out a mortgage loan from World Savings Bank, FSB, in February 2004. Hart also executed a home equity line of credit with World Savings Bank in March 2004. World Savings Bank, then operating as Wachovia Mortgage FSB, was acquired by and merged into Defendant Wells Fargo in November 2009. Wells Fargo serviced Hart's loans until April 2021. In November 2012, Wells Fargo instituted foreclosure proceedings against Hart in the Superior Court of New Jersey after Hart missed payments on her mortgage loan. The parties vigorously litigated this matter in state court for years (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jane Hart, No. ATL-F-25759-12 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.)). In 2018, Hart filed a motion for leave to amend her Answer and counterclaims to add class action claims pertaining to Wells Fargo's fee collection system. Specifically, Hart asserted claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (4) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); and (5) conspiracy to violate RICO. On Aug. 24, 2018, after oral argument and briefing, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael J. Blee denied Hart's motion to amend her answer and counterclaims, finding that Hart's proposed claims were meritless and futile. The Superior Court granted a final judgment of foreclosure to Wells Fargo in January 2019. Shortly thereafter, Wells Fargo requested that the Superior Court vacate the 2019 judgment so that Wells Fargo could add an additional lien holder as a defendant. The court did so, and Wells Fargo filed an amended complaint in July 2019. In response, Hart filed counterclaims and an answer asserting the same class action counterclaims that were the subject of Judge Blee's 2018 decision. Wells Fargo cross-moved to dismiss these claims. On Oct. 8, 2019, Judge Blee granted Wells Fargo's cross motion to dismiss Hart's counterclaims, answer, and affirmative defenses with prejudice, and granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. On Feb. 13, 2020, Wells Fargo again applied for entry of final judgment. It withdrew this application on March 31, 2020, however, allegedly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Clerk of the Superior Court subsequently issued multiple orders instructing the parties to provide updates of the status of the foreclosure action. Eventually, the Clerk issued a notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution. On May 19, 2021, Wells Fargo moved to stay the dismissal for lack of prosecution. That motion was denied. On June 4, 2021, the Clerk of the Superior Court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. On Aug. 5, 2021, Hart filed the instant complaint in federal court, asserting claims against Wells Fargo for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (4) violations of RICO; and (5) conspiracy to violate RICO. On Sept. 30, 2021, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Hart's federal complaint. In support of this motion, Wells Fargo filed a memorandum of law. Hart filed a brief opposing Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss on Nov. 1, 2021, to which Wells Fargo replied on Nov. 15, 2021. II. Legal Standard When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." When deciding a motion to dismiss, courts may take judicial notice of matters of public record, citing Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). III. Discussion Wells Fargo argues that Hart should be collaterally estopped from bringing these claims because the New Jersey Superior Court ruled on the exact issues Hart raises here in the prior foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo against Hart in state court, ultimately dismissing them with prejudice. The Plaintiff responds that because the foreclosure action was dismissed without entry of judgment, collateral estoppel does not apply. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating issues that were adjudicated in a prior lawsuit. Under New Jersey law, a party seeking to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that: (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding. Here, the parties dispute only whether the Superior Court issued a final judgment on the merits in the New Jersey foreclosure action. The Court finds that Judge Blee's orders in the New Jersey foreclosure action are sufficiently firm as to warrant conclusive effect. The parties were fully heard on these issues; in fact, Judge Blee considered the precise issues raised in Hart's federal complaint on two occasions. In the first instance, Judge Blee entered a reasoned opinion addressing the legal and factual issues raised by Hart's proposed counterclaims and disposing of the proposed these claims on the merits. This decision followed oral argument and full briefing by the parties. In the second instance, Judge Blee dismissed Hart's class action counterclaims with prejudice, stressing that these claims have already been considered and rejected. Again, this dismissal came after full briefing and oral argument. These decisions--particularly the second dismissal with prejudice--were clearly intended to be the final adjudication of the precise issues that Hart is now attempting to relitigate in the instant action, Judge Kugler opines. Indeed, the foreclosure action was poised for an entry of judgment when the COVID-19 pandemic took hold and the matter was put on hold, before eventually being dismissed without prejudice. While Hart was not able to appeal Judge Blee's orders as of right, see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Garner, 416 N.J.Super. 520, 523 (App. Div. 2010), this is not dispositive, Judge Kugler says. Again, Judge Blee considered these issues not once, but twice. Moreover, as Wells Fargo stresses, Hart had the ability to seek reconsideration or leave for interlocutory review of Judge Blee's order dismissing her claims with prejudice. Thus, it cannot be said that Hart had no opportunity for meaningful review. In any event, the other relevant factors support a finding that the state court orders are final for preclusion purposes. Nor is the Court persuaded by Hart's argument that application of collateral estoppel here would be unfair. Judge Kugler explains that Hart is correct that courts in New Jersey also consider general principles of fairness when determining whether collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of certain issues. Considering these principles of fairness, the Court finds that it would not be inequitable to preclude Hart from relitigating the issues presented in her federal complaint; indeed, Hart fails to make any real argument to the contrary. The only factor that weighs against preclusion in this case is the lack of appellate review available to Hart as of right. However, for substantially the same reasons as discussed, the Court finds that this alone does not outweigh the substantial considerations of efficiency and consistency that support the application of collateral estoppel. The issues at stake here have been vigorously litigated, twice. Accordingly, Judge Kugler points out, application of the collateral estoppel doctrine is fair in this instance. IV. Conclusion For the reasons contained here, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. An accompanying Order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 6, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/49x242cr from Leagle.com. WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Response to Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES BRYANT, BRIAN D CURTIS and ALFRED JOHNSON, v. JOHN R. BALDWIN, STEVE MEEKS and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02192-SLD (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file supplemental response to Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification has been pending since mid-2020. The Plaintiffs allege the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and Wexford, in an effort to decrease costs and increase profits, have a policy of denying necessary surgery for painful hernias except in emergencies. The Plaintiffs allege this policy prohibits medical staff from exercising medical judgment and resulted in the denial of needed surgery, leaving them in pain, unable to attend to daily activities, and at risk of serious complications. The Plaintiffs claim Wexford uses a "collegial review" process in which unlicensed physicians have final decisional authority over the provision of medical care, to implement the unconstitutional policy and practice at the heart of the Motion. Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xu7i61 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph N. Rupcich, Esq. CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP 3100 Montvale Drive Springfield, IL 62704 Telephone: (217) 572-1714 Facsimile: (217) 572-1613 E-mail: jrupcich@cassiday.com WILD WEST: Filing of Jeter Class Status Bid Extended to July 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeter, et al., v. Wild West Gas, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00411-TCK-CDL (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Terence C. Kern entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file class certification motion as follows: Event Schedule -- Class Certification Motion July 11, 2022 filed with supporting evidence, including expert disclosures -- Class Certification Response August 15, 2022 filed with supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: -- Class Certification Discovery September 19, 2022 Cutoff: -- Class Certification Reply September 19, 2022 filed with any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: -- Class Certification Hearing TBD (specific date to be set by Court at a later date) The Plaintiffs include KEVIN L. JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H. MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, and JANICE SUE PARKER, individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons, and JAMES D. ENLOE, CAROLYN R. ENLOE, and SCOTT BAILY, individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons. The Defendants include BULLSEYE ENERGY, INC., CEP MID-CONTINENT, L.L.C., KRS&K, an Oklahoma partnership, GASHOMA, INC., PURGATORY CREEK GAS, INC., REDBIRD OIL, an Oklahoma partnership, WILD WEST GAS, LLC, WHITE HAWK GAS, INC., FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE, LOUISE KANE ROARK, ANN KANE SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA BROWN, and GARY BROWN. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x9xu4C at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAM OSLER: Cert. Ruling in Breach of Privacy Suit Discussed --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer L. Hunter and Jacqueline M. Palef, Esq., of Lerners, in an article for Mondaq, report that in the recent decision in Stewart v Demme,1 the Divisional Court granted the defendant's appeal setting aside the order of the certification judge2 and ultimately dismissing the plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed class action for intrusion upon seclusion. The case is yet another example of a claim for breach of privacy being rejected by the court because the claimants could not show that the breach was significant enough to warrant a remedy. CERTIFICATION DECISION OF MORGAN J. In the underlying certification motion before Justice Morgan, the plaintiff sought to certify a class action against a nurse and the hospital which employed her. The defendant nurse had engaged in a series of thefts of opioids, ultimately obtaining 23,932 pills. She acquired the drugs by misusing her position at the hospital to gain unauthorized access to patients' medical files, and used patient information to dispense the pills. In total, the nurse had improperly accessed the individual health records of 11,358 patients. Patients whose files were improperly accessed could be divided into two categories: those who were actually patients of the nurse or were on the unit in which the nurse worked, and those who were hospital patients but not her patients, and for whom she had access to their digital records. The plaintiffs sought damages for intrusion upon seclusion and negligence. Justice Morgan noted the central question before him was "whether a privacy violation can be "highly offensive" and actionable even if it is fleeting and causes no harm."3 While Justice Morgan was satisfied the certification criteria were met, and that the claim for intrusion upon seclusion claim was a viable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the certification test, he found there was insufficient evidence of a viable cause of action in negligence on a class-wide basis, as causation and damages questions were elusive. APPEAL TO THE DIVISIONAL COURT On appeal, the court considered the motion judge's comments that "this was not a case that cries out for a remedy." In light of his findings regarding the nature and seriousness of the intrusion, the Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in concluding that the claim met the threshold necessary to disclose a tenable cause of action in intrusion upon seclusion and re-affirmed that this tort is a limited and specific tort developed for cases where there was a "deliberate and significant invasion of highly personal information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."4 In this case, "while the information accessed was health information, the information accessed was limited, and the access was fleeting and incidental to the medication theft. Ms. Demme [the nurse defendant] was not "after" the information, nor did she retain it or share it with anyone else." The court concluded, "the medication theft cried out for a remedy, which was forthcoming; the privacy intrusion did not."5 The Divisional Court confirmed the proper interpretation of the leading Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Tsige,6 noting that "Not every intrusion into private health information amounts to a basis to sue for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The particular intrusion must be "highly offensive" when viewed objectively having regard to all the relevant circumstances. If the case does not "cry out for a remedy," it is a signal that the high standard for certification of this limited tort may not be met."7 The tort of inclusion upon seclusion was not designed to offer a remedy for every situation where there is a privacy intrusion. Instead, the court reiterated, it is "designed to offer a remedy in situations where the privacy intrusion is very serious, not any privacy intrusion."8 The court also emphasized that the significance of the intrusion is to be assessed individually and not collectively; the fact that there were 11,000+ intrusions did not mean that intrusion was significant and highly offensive.9 In considering the proper interpretation of Jones, the Divisional Court confirmed that for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, "the intrusion must still be deliberate and significant to be considered "highly offensive." To find otherwise would be to "open the floodgates" to claims such as the one at issue in this proceeding, where the intrusions were fleeting, the information accessed was not particularly sensitive within the realm of health information, the intruder was not "after" the information itself, which was otherwise available to her and/or a number of other hospital staff, and there was no discernible effect on the patients."10 CONCLUSION The Divisional Court has reaffirmed the high threshold to satisfy a cause of action under the tort of inclusion upon seclusion. It remains clear that evidence, or even admission, of a privacy breach will not necessarily lead to a viable privacy class action. This is particularly so where the more significant wrongful conduct, in this case, the medication theft, is being addressed by other means. This case is consistent with other decisions that have held that the nature of the information at issue in a privacy class action continues to be an important factor in assessing whether a class action is an appropriate vehicle to support this type of claim. Privacy class actions are increasing in number but have yet to see much success in Canadian courts. As we have noted previously,11 the courts have been reluctant to find that such a claim is viable absent evidence of actual harm resulting from a breach and amounting to more than ordinary inconvenience. As demonstrated by the decision in Stewart v Demme, a claim that does not involve a breach that is serious and significant in and of itself is also unlikely to overcome the initial hurdle of certification. Indeed, given the court's comments in this and other cases, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion does not seem well-suited to a privacy class action. It remains to be seen whether class actions premised on other privacy torts will have greater success or if plaintiffs who suffer privacy breaches will have to rely primarily on more traditional causes of action such as negligence and breach of contract. Footnotes 1 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790. 2 Steward v Demme, 2020 ONSC 83. 3 Steward v Demme, 2020 ONSC 83 at para 1. 4 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 3. 5 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 3. 6 Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32. 7 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 16. 8 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 22. 9 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 24. 10 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 27. 11 See our earlier blog posts part 1, part 2 and part 3.[GN] WORKFORCE 7 INC: Discovery Plan, Sched Order Modified in Ballast ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE and MARQUIS RICHARDSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order that the terms of the January 10, 2022 Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order shall continue in full force and effect except for the following modifications: a. Non-expert depositions shall be completed by September 2, 2022; b. Plaintiffs shall take the first step in class certification motion practice by October 3, 2022; c. Any further interrogatories, including expert interrogatories, shall be served no later than September 14, 2022; d. Requests to Admit, if any, shall be served no later than September 14, 2022; e. Expert reports shall be served no later than October 14, 2022; f. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than November 14, 2022; g. Expert depositions shall be completed by February 13, 2023; h. All discovery shall be completed by: such date that is 90 days from the date of a decision on Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZtRCO at no extra charge.[CC]https://bit.ly/3GZtRCO YMI JEANSWEAR: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against YMI Jeanswear, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. YMI Jeanswear, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04582 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. YMI Jeans -- https://www.ymijeans.com/ -- offers denim fashion jeans for women, plus size & kids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ZEETO LLC: Williams Granted Extension to File Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZEETO, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01646-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order granting the plaintiff's second unopposed motion for extension of time to move for class certification. On December 21, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. In the order, the Court required Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by May 6, 2022. On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Move for Class Certification. That same day, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion and ordered Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by June 6, 2022. On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Move for Class Certification. The Plaintiff seeks to continue his deadline for filing a motion for class certification to July 6, 2022. The Plaintiff states that the parties (1) initially proposed November 11, 2022 for a class certification filing deadline, (2) have unresolved discovery disputes, and (3) are engaged in settlement discussions which they have prioritized over other issues. The Plaintiff notes that the discovery he is awaiting addresses the Rule 23 factors and that defense counsel does not oppose this motion. 3 Good cause appearing, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification on or before July 6, 2022. All other deadlines and requirements remain as previously set. The Court warns the parties that no further extensions of the class certification motion filing deadline will be granted. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QaXJk0 at no extra charge.[CC] ZEETO LLC: Williams Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZEETO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:21-cv-01646-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to move for class certification, up to and including July 6, 2022. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 20, 2021. 2. On December 10, 2021, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Plan, setting forth November 11, 2022, as the proposed deadline to move for class certification. On December 20, 2021, the Parties attended an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. Following the ENE conference, Magistrate Judge Major entered a scheduling order, setting May 6, 2022, as the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification. The Plaintiff previously sought an extension of the deadline to move for class certification to account for outstanding discovery disputes. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion and extended the deadline to move for class certification to June 6, 2022. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6M8jN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory Pendergast, Esq. THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC 3019 Polk Avenue San Diego, CA 92104 Telephone: (619) 344-8699 Facsimile: 619-344-8701 E-mail: Rory@rorylaw.com - and - Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 1939 Harrison Srtreet Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510-836-4200 E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com - and - Rory Pendergast, Esq. THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC 3019 Polk Avenue San Diego, CA 92104 Telephone: (619) 344-8699 Facsimile: (619) 344-8701 E-mail: Rory@rorylaw.com - and - Stephen A. Klein, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 907-4654 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: sklein@woodrowpeluso.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***