/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220620.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 116 Headlines ALFI INC: Faces Kleinschmidt Shareholder Suit in Florida Court ALFI INC: Faces Steppacher Shareholder Suit in Florida ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Status Hearing Set for August 23-24 AM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Deadlines & Schedules Extended AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Delinquently Pays Wages, Pope Class Suit Says AMERICAN BAR: Disclosed Info Without Consent, Crane Suit Alleges AMGUARD INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Amir Class Suit With Prejudice APEX CLEARING: Chavez Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Florida APPLE INC: Consolidated Processor Suit Dismissed W/ Leave to Amend AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Williams Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. BGLG INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLACK DIAMOND: Class Settlement in Borelli Suit Has Final Approval BOB DEAN: Verdin's Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied BOFI HOLDING: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Prelim. Approval BRAVO ARKOMA: MRC Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Bischoff Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court CG-HHC INC: Fails to Pay OT Compensation to Non-Exempt Employees CHAPTER NY LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Payment of Insurance Claims CINTAS CORPORATION: Calendar Order Entered in Bearup Class Suit CORECIVIC INC: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal CREE INC: Court Junks Wedra Bid for Class Certification EAST GRAND: Rajabova Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA EDUCATION CREDIT: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report EVOLENT HEALTH: Class Certification Hearing Extended to July 8 FEDERAL SAVINGS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 27 FIDELITY DESIGN HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLOWERS FOODS: Settles Bowen and Aucoin Suits in Maine FOOT SOLUTIONS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Tucker Suit GALERIE BUCHHOLZ: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Miller Alleges GEICO CASUALTY: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Day GLENS FALLS: Richard Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement GOT GUARD: Hooks Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards HAWKINS NEW YORK: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Allowed to File Fourth Amended Complaint HI Q INC: Case Management & Pretrial Deadlines Extension Sought HIGHMARK BCBSD: Parties Must File Case Management Order by June 21 HILTON RESORTS: Chavez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California HOOSIER CONTRACTORS: Denial of Summary Judgments in Gardner Upheld HUDSON'S BAY: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod IBM CORP: Adams and Movants to Confer on Appointment of Lead Roles INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cyiark Alleges INMAR INC: Seeks to Stay Holmes' Class Certification Bid INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Bhambhani Suit INSTANT BRANDS: Faces Havens Suit Over Pressure Cooker Defect INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Knight Sues Over Unfair Pension Benefits ISTOGROUP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benoit Suit Alleges JAMES LEBLANC: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended in Humphrey JIGSAW HEALTH: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS: Blaine School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mead School Suit Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, East Valley Suit Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Crandon Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hugo Public Alleges JUUL LABS: Faces Bethel School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Faces Manistee Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Faces Oakfield-Alabama Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Frenchtown School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Claiborne Suit Claims JUUL LABS: Mount Baker Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Oak Harbor Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Walla Suit Says JUUL LABS: Steubenville City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Toutle Lake Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Wash. KOMATSU MINING: Bid to Dismiss Curtis' Amended Complaint Granted LANGIS LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LLOYD AUSTIN: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint MAJOR LEAGUE: Casey's Sues Over Alleged Anticompetitive Scheme MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Hinton Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California MARATHON REFINING: Wood Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Suit Seeks Certify Class & Subclasses MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Agrees With Maadanian on Pleading and Due Dates META PLATFORMS: District Court Consolidates Sloan and Gervat Suits MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Seeks Final Approval of Settlement MGM RESORTS: Lucas, et al., File Bid for Class Certification MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Petrea Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Coady, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Smith NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Bid for Class Status Nixed w/o Prejudice NEW YORK: Cardew, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert. Bid Deadline NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania OAK PARK PLACE: Scheduling Order Entered in Ricker Class Action PAYSAFE PAYMENT: Order Adopting Schedule Entered in Bitmouni Suit PEPSICO INC: Irving Labor Suit Moved From E.D. Mo. to S.D.N.Y. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing on Class Certification Vacated RAPID FINANCIAL: Updated Scheduling Order in Watkins Suit Approved ROBERT HAMMER: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought SANTANDER BANK: Settlement in Tepper Suit Gets Initial Approval SIMONE SUBAL GALLERY: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Class Action SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in CA Court SOLA SALON: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPINNAKER RESORTS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Dudas STATE FARM: Colorado Court Dismisses RTP Suit Without Prejudice STATE FARM: Seeks June 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Loses Bid for Writ of Prohibition in Snider Suit TALEN ENERGY: Non-Debtor Defendants Seek Leave to File Sur Reply UNILEVER US: Taylor Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot UPHOLD HQ: Sandoval Suit Referred to Magistrate for Pretrial Mgmt. USA QR: Liang Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL VALUE SERVICE: Taveras Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Wages Under FLSA VENTURE HOME: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in James Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Scheduling Order Amended in Connelly Suit VTECH HEALTHCARE: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought VVF INTERVEST: Parties Seek to Conditionally Certify Class VXI GLOBAL: Colleton Seeks to Recover Penalties Under PAGA WASTE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Artificially Inflated Senior Notes WHITE CUBE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHOLESOME SPIRITS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Kelley Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order WILSON LOGISTICS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Response ********* ALFI INC: Faces Kleinschmidt Shareholder Suit in Florida Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfi, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2022, that on December 15, 2021, the company, certain of its present and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in the company's IPO were named as defendants in a putative class action styled "Kleinschmidt v. Alfi, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-24338, brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint in said action alleges that the company and other named defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, with respect to allegedly false and misleading statements included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with the company's IPO in May 2021 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and materially misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts in the company's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said complaint assert that the putative plaintiff class includes persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased or acquired the common stock or warrants to purchase the common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents and persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased or acquired the company's securities between May 4, 2021, and November 15, 2021. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, and costs and expenses, including attorney's and expert fees. In February 3, 2022, the court consolidated the action under Case No. 21-cv-24232-KMW. Alfi, Inc. operates in the technology sector, specifically, "software as a service" in the "digital out of home smart advertising" segment. This segment includes artificial intelligence, machine & deep learning, edge computing, big data, telecommunications, and the "internet of things." ALFI INC: Faces Steppacher Shareholder Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Alfi, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2022, that on December 2, 2021, the company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled "Steppacher v. Alfi, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-24232, brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint in said action alleges that the company and other named defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, with respect to allegedly false and misleading statements included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with the company's IPO in May 2021 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and materially misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts in the company's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said complaint assert that the putative plaintiff class includes persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased or acquired the common stock or warrants to purchase the common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents and persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased or acquired the company's securities between May 4, 2021, and November 15, 2021. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, and costs and expenses, including attorney's and expert fees. In February 3, 2022, the court consolidated the action under Case No. 21-cv-24232-KMW Alfi, Inc. operates in the technology sector, specifically, "software as a service" in the "digital out of home smart advertising" segment. This segment includes artificial intelligence, machine & deep learning, edge computing, big data, telecommunications, and the "internet of things." ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Status Hearing Set for August 23-24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Durgin v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance, Co., Case No. 6:19-cv-00721 (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol B. Whitehurst entered an electronic order after discussion with counsel. The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 23-24, 2022. The hearing will begin each morning at 10:00 a.m. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] AM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Deadlines & Schedules Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grant v. AM Communications, LTD, et al., Case No. Miroslav Lovric (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the request in status report insofar as and to the extent that the deadlines and schedules are extended as follows: -- All Discovery, Merits and Class Certification shall be completed by Sept. 1, 2022; -- The Class Certification Motion and Dispositive Motions shall be filed by Oct. 3, 2022. -- The parties are directed to file next status reports by Aug. 1, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving collection of unpaid wages. AM Communications is an installation services provider.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER DEL RIO, COLIN MEUNIER, and AARON DELAROCHE, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Employees, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, and AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01152-KAD (D. Conn.), the Parties filed joint motion to modify the scheduling order as follows: Deadline Current Requested Modification Pre-Class Certification June 30, 2022 Sept. 2, 2022 Discovery: Plaintiff's Motion for July 30, 2022 Oct. 7, 2022 Class Certification: Defendants' Motion for July 30, 2022 Oct. 7, 2022 Summary Judgment: Amazon provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMYuCb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, McKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Rosenberg, Esq. Joshua B. Waxman, Esq. Martha J. Keon, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C One Century Tower 265 Church Street, Suite 300 New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 974-8700 Facsimile: (203) 974-8799 E-mail: sprosenberg@littler.com jwaxman@littler.com mkeon@littler.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Delinquently Pays Wages, Pope Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT POPE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03419 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed by the Defendant between October 24, 2015 and the present in the State of New York pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether the employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. AMC Entertainment is an American movie theater chain headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN L W, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 AMERICAN BAR: Disclosed Info Without Consent, Crane Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK CRANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11267-TGB-CI ECF (E.D. Mich., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Private Reading Information in violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant rented, exchanged, and disclosed detailed information about the Plaintiff's American Bar Association Journal magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and otherwise disclosing the Plaintiff's Private Reading Information during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, violated the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, says the suit. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides law school accreditation, legal education, and lawyers and judges assistance programs to lawyers, law students, and other legal professionals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com -and- Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com -and- Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com AMGUARD INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Amir Class Suit With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Musaid Amir, et al., Plaintiffs v. AmGuard Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 21-12457 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismisses the action. I. Introduction The three named Plaintiffs in the putative class action own or rent residential properties in Michigan that were insured by the Defendant insurance company. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased "flood insurance" from the Defendant, that their basements then flooded on June 26, 2021 after a heavy rainfall, but that the Defendant refused to pay their insurance claims. The Plaintiffs assert breach of contract claims, based on the insurer's denial of their claims, along with fraud, innocent misrepresentation, silent fraud, and promissory estoppel claims under Michigan law. The matter is currently before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court heard oral argument on May 26, 2022. II. Background Acting through counsel, Plaintiffs Musaid Amir, Zead Rammouni, and Ali Yahya, filed the putative class action against Defendant AmGuard. The Defendant removed the action to the Court based upon diversity jurisdiction. Each of them obtained a homeowners insurance policy from the Defendant and allege that they experienced flooding of their basements on the same date -- June 26, 2021. The Plaintiffs' "Class Action Complaint And Jury Demand" states that it is "brought on behalf of current and future insureds who have entered into contractual agreements whereby the Defendant represented that it was providing coverage for flood as that term is commonly understood." It includes the following five causes of action: 1) "Fraud," 2) "Innocent Misrepresentation," 3) "Silent Fraud," 4) "Breach of Express Contract," and 5) "Promissory Estoppel." The Plaintiffs' "Fraud" count alleges that the Defendant "acting through its agents made material representations regarding the nature and scope of its insurance coverage." They allege that the "Defendant's material representations were false" and that "when the Defendant made the material representations it knew that they were false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion." The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendant made the material representations with the intention that they should be acted upon by Plaintiffs." They allege that they "acted in reliance upon the Defendant's material representations" and that they "suffered injury as a result of Defendant's material representations." The Plaintiffs' "Innocent Misrepresentation" count alleges that the "Defendant acting through its agents made material representations in transaction between it and the Plaintiffs," that the "Defendant's material representations were false," and that the "Defendants material representations actually deceived Plaintiffs." The Plaintiffs allege that they "relied upon the Defendant's material representations," and that the "Defendant benefitted from its material representations by collecting insurance premiums for coverage that it would never provide thereby selling illusory insurance coverage to the Plaintiffs." They allege that they "suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's material representations, and that the "Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon Defendant's material representations." The Plaintiffs' "Silent Fraud" count alleges that the "Defendant failed to disclose a material fact about the subject matter at issue, namely that the purported flood insurance coverage that it sold to the Plaintiffs would not provide actual coverage for a flood as that term is commonly understood." They allege that the "Defendant knew that the purported flood insurance coverage that the Defendant sold to the Plaintiffs would not provide actual coverage for a flood as that term is commonly understood." They allege that the "Defendant's failure to disclose that the purported flood insurance coverage that it sold to them would not provide actual coverage for a flood as that term is commonly understood gave the Plaintiffs a false impression that the flood insurance coverage that it sold to them would in fact provide actual coverage for a flood as that term is commonly understood." The Plaintiffs allege that they "in fact relied upon the false impression created by the Defendant" and that they "suffered damages as a result of relying upon the false impression created by it." The "Breach Of Express Contract" count alleges that "contracts existed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant whereby it agreed to provide the Plaintiffs coverage for flood damage to their respective properties" and that the Defendant breached those contracts "by refusing to provide them coverage for flood damage to their respective properties." The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendant's breach of said contracts resulted in damages to the Plaintiffs' respective properties." The Plaintiffs' "Promissory Estoppel" count alleges that the "Defendant promised to provide the Plaintiffs coverage for flood damage to their respective properties," that the Defendant "should reasonably have expected to induce action of definite and substantial character by the Plaintiffs," and that the "Defendant in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided." The December 2, 2021 Scheduling Order in the case provides, among other things, that any amendments to the pleadings had to be made by Jan. 13, 2022. The Plaintiffs did not seek to file an amended complaint. On Feb. 3, 2022, the Defendant filed a "Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings." III. Analysis A. Fraud, Silent Fraud, And Innocent Misrepresentation Claims The Defendant contends that it is entitled to dismissal of the Plaintiffs' extra-contractual claims of fraud, silent fraud, and innocent misrepresentation because those claims are not pled with particularity, as is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Judge Cox agrees. He holds that (i) the Plaintiffs have failed to allege their fraud counts with that required particularity; (ii) the Plaintiffs' innocent misrepresentation count alleges that the "Defendant acting through its agents made material representations in transactions" with Plaintiffs that "were false," but their complaint fails to include any supporting factual allegations as to the time, place, or content of any such representations; and (iii) the Plaintiffs fail to address the challenges made to their silent fraud claims and the Plaintiffs do not plead facts that would support a duty to disclose. Accordingly, Judge Cox dismisses the Plaintiffs' fraud, silent fraud, and innocent misrepresentation claims. B. Breach of Contract Claims The Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims. In response to the Defendant's challenge to the breach of contract claims, the Plaintiffs make several arguments in their response brief that are non-starters and are rejected by the Court. Judge Cox holds that (i) the Defendant's motion attached copies of the insurance contracts at issue as exhibits to the motion and the Plaintiffs did so too; (ii) because the insurance contracts are central to the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, and referenced in the complaint, the Court can consider those contracts in evaluating the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' complaint does not include any factual allegations that would tend to show that their claims are covered under the above endorsement. Judge Cox therefore finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a breach of contract claim against the Defendants. C. Promissory Estoppel Claims The Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claims because: 1) it is undisputed that valid, enforceable insurance contracts exist between the parties; and 2) and any alleged oral promises would contradict the clear, binding language of those policies. As to that second part of that challenge, the Defendant's motion states that the Plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claims fail because "the clear language of the Homeowners Policies precludes coverage for Plaintiffs' claimed damages, which Policies, including the Water Exclusions, the Plaintiffs are presumed to have read. In responding to the Defendant's motion, the Plaintiffs ignore the second part of this challenge and their response to the first part of the challenge fails to save this claim. Their complaint asserts a breach of contract claim against Defendants based upon the insurance contracts. Nevertheless, in response to the Defendant's motion, the Plaintiffs take the position that their contracts may not be valid and enforceable because of the doctrine of illusory coverage. Judge Cox finds that the Plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim is based on the allegation that the "Defendant promised to provide the Plaintiffs coverage for flood damage to their respective properties." The complaint does not include any factual allegations as to who made the alleged promises to the three named Plaintiffs on behalf of the Defendant, or the words used to make those alleged promises. Assuming arguendo that some agent or employee of Defendant told the Plaintiffs that the insurance contracts provide coverage for flood damage, the circumstances surrounding such a statement would preclude an objective finding of a clear and definite promise of such coverage, and reasonable reliance on same, because the insurance policies expressly contradict such a statement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a promissory estoppel claim under Michigan law. IV. Conclusion & Order For the reasons he set forth, Judge Cox grants the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismisses action with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yu5vhycb from Leagle.com. APEX CLEARING: Chavez Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ERIK CHAVEZ and PETER JANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APEX CLEARING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01233, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-21747-CMA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with business relationship by implementing a unilateral, one-way trading suspension of stocks for AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC), GameStop Corporation (GME), and Koss Corporation (KOSS) for approximately three hours, causing the price of the suspended stocks to spiral downward to artificially suppressed prices by allowing selling to continue. Apex Clearing Corporation is a broker-dealer with a principal place of business at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300, Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifinan@kgglaw.com - and – Peter Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN LAW LLC 45 N. Broad Street, Suite 100 Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (917) 952-9458 E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinlaw.com APPLE INC: Consolidated Processor Suit Dismissed W/ Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE APPLE PROCESSOR LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-00147-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants Apple's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. I. Introduction The putative class action Plaintiffs are purchasers or lessors of certain Apple products, such as iPhones, iPads, and the Apple TV ("iDevices"), each containing a processor that the Plaintiffs allege suffers from a design defect that allows unauthorized third parties to access sensitive user data. The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit against Defendant Apple, alleging that they paid more for their iDevices than they were worth because Apple knowingly omitted the defect; the value of Plaintiffs' products has diminished; and Apple's attempts to mitigate the defects with patches through software updates materially slowed down the performance of their iDevices. Apple has filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint ("SCAC") with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for inadequate pleading of their misrepresentation, omission, restitution, and injunctive relief claims. II. Background The Plaintiffs are Jennifer Abrams (CA), Anthony Bartling (NH), Robert Giraldi (NY), and Jacqueline Olson (NY) who, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that the iDevices all contain a central processing unit that is defective. The Plaintiffs bring their class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and seek to represent a class that consists of: All persons in the United States who purchased or leased from Apple and/or its authorized retailer sellers one or more iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs, or other products containing processors designed or modified by Apple, at any time since Jan. 1, 2010. The Plaintiffs also seek to represent three subclasses: the "California Subclass," the "New Hampshire Subclass," and the "New York Subclass." These classes are comprised of members who purchased such iDevices within their respected states. Defendant Apple is a business incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells products including the iDevices and other computing devices that contain processors. On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against Apple alleging sixteen causes of action. On Aug. 7, 2018, Apple filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on standing grounds with leave to amend. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, asserting seven causes of action. Apple again moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SCAC for lack of standing or any cause of action, which the Court granted again on standing grounds without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of Apple. On appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel held that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled standing but expressly declined to address Apple's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, leaving that task to the Court in the first instance. On remand, the parties stipulated to renewed and updated briefing on Apple's 12(b)(6) defenses, which is presently before the Court. III. Discussion The Plaintiffs bring seven counts against Apple in the SCAC, asserting causes of action arising from California, New York, New Hampshire, and common law. The Plaintiffs' Counts I, III, IV, V, and VII allege violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act ("NHCPA"), two sections of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), and common law fraud, respectively. Because these claims are all grounded in the same unified course of fraudulent conduct, the Court refers to these five Counts collectively as the Plaintiffs' "Fraud Claims" and apply Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements to all five Counts. The Plaintiffs also seek equitable restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 ("UCL") as Count II and for unjust enrichment as Count VI. Additionally, they seek injunctive relief for their CLRA and UCL claims for Apple to be "permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing and maintaining the violations alleged." A. Fraud Claims The Plaintiffs assert fraud-based claims under the CLRA, the New York GBL, and the NHCPA. These theories of fraud are based on both affirmative misrepresentation and material omissions. Apple argues that, with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' Fraud Claims, the SCAC fails to allege at least three necessary elements: An actionable misrepresentation (either made affirmatively or by omission), reliance, and damages. Judge Davila holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege an affirmative misrepresentation, an actionable omission, and actual reliance, so does not reach Apple's arguments on damages. First, he finds that because the Plaintiffs are unable to identify any statement from Apple that is both sufficiently specific to be actionable and was false when made, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for fraud under an affirmative misrepresentation theory. Second, he finds that even if the Plaintiffs had specified that the Defects arose during their warranty periods, they have failed to allege facts that show the Defects were central to the iDevices' function. Third, Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for fraud under either an affirmative misrepresentations theory or an omissions theory, and their Fraud Claims may be dismissed on those grounds alone. However, he notes that the Plaintiffs have also failed to adequately plead actual reliance on their theories of Apple's affirmative statements or omissions. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation, omission, or actual reliance, Judge Davila grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fraud Claims, i.e., Counts I, III, IV, V, and VII. Although this is the third motion to dismiss that the Court has granted, the previous orders did not address the substantive sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' claims, and Judge Davila cannot determine that the presently identified deficiencies are incurable. Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend the SCAC as to these Counts. B. Equitable Relief Claims In addition to the Fraud Claims, the SCAC asserts two other claims for equitable relief: A UCL claim for restitution and injunctive relief (Count II) and a common law unjust enrichment claim for restitution (Court VI). With respect to their unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiffs "seek appropriate monetary relief" and "the establishment of a constructive trust, in a sum certain, of all monies charged and collected." Regarding injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs have pled that they are entitled to injunctive relief and seek "[t]hat Defendant be permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing and maintaining the violations alleged" but do not otherwise specify what kind of injunction they are seeking. Because of the foregoing deficiencies with the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, Judge Davila grants Apple's motion to dismiss Count VI. As with the Fraud Claims, he cannot conclude that these deficiencies are incurable through additional amendment. Accordingly, he permits the Plaintiffs leave to amend the SCAC as to Count VI. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any of the three UCL prongs, Judge Davila grants Apple's motion to dismiss Count II of the SCAC pertaining to the Plaintiffs' UCL claim. He cannot determine that the Plaintiffs' UCL claim would be incurable with further allegations and grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend the SCAC as to Count II. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Apple's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint is granted. All Counts in the SCAC are dismissed with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs may file and serve an amended complaint no later than June 30, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p99tbd9 from Leagle.com. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Williams Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTINA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV14614, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03933 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 pay timely wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a real estate investment trust company, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com ksullivan@ebglaw.com BGLG INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BGLG, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BGLG, Inc. doing business as: Goby, Case No. 1:22-cv-04740 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BGLG, Inc. doing business as Goby -- http://www.goby.co/-- engages in the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic toothbrushes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BLACK DIAMOND: Class Settlement in Borelli Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Edward Borelli, et al., Plaintiffs v. Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02093-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for final approval of a settlement agreement. I. Background According to the operative complaint, Black Diamond used a compensation scheme that paid drivers less than minimum wages and wrongfully withheld pay for required rest breaks and other working time. The complaint also includes claims for wrongfully withheld meal breaks, faulty pay stubs, and related wage and hour claims, among others. It seeks certification of a class action as well as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Black Diamond successfully moved to compel arbitration in 2017. The Court also compelled Basic Resources to participate in the arbitration, finding the two companies were alter egos. While the arbitration was still ongoing, the parties participated in mediation with Lisa Klerman, a mediator whom California district courts have described as experienced and well-respected in wage and hour class actions. The parties eventually reached an agreement to settle on behalf of all former Black Diamond truck drivers with the same wage and hour claims. The agreement creates three overlapping subclasses of former Black Diamond employees: One with claims under California labor law, a second with federal FLSA claims, and a third with claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In total the class includes 85 drivers who worked at Black Diamond between 2010 and 2014, when the company ceased operations. Black Diamond and Basic Resources agree to pay $340,000 to settle these claims. Of that sum, the parties agree that up to $112,000 may cover attorneys' fees, $12,000 may be allocated to costs, and $7,500 will be paid to each of the three named plaintiffs as service awards. The parties estimate $5,200 will be paid to administer the settlement. The settlement amount will be reduced by any resulting payroll taxes, approximately $11,300, and a $7,500 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), as required by the California Labor Code. These deductions would result in a net settlement amount of approximately $169,300, slightly less than half the gross. The settlement administrator estimates the total net settlement amount is slightly lower: $167,167.50. The parties proposed that notice be given to class members and money distributed from the net settlement fund using the contact information in Black Diamond's employment records. Members of the putative Rule 23 subclass could opt out or object; members of the FLSA collective action were required to either opt in or have consent as provided in the FLSA; and membership in the PAGA subclass is automatic under California law. No class member would receive less than $25.00. The parties proposed that any unclaimed funds be paid cy pres to the Salvation Army in Modesto. The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. First, it found the proposed Rule 23 class was likely to both meet the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), and to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Second, a significant portion of the difference between the net award and the maximum potential award flowed "from the subtraction of $112,200 in fees, $22,500 in incentive awards, and $12,000 in estimated costs. Third, the 33% fee award made up a relatively large percentage of the total gross award, higher than the 25% benchmark against which such awards are normally measured. Fourth, the proposed incentive awards raised concerns. The named Plaintiffs would receive $7,500, more than the average recovery amount. Finally, the Court certified the proposed FLSA collective action on a preliminary basis for the same reasons, and approved the parties' proposed notice. Notice was then sent to the proposed class members. None objected to the proposed class action, none opted out, and only one claimant disputed the worksheets used to calculate the pro rata awards. The average recovery per proposed class member would be a little more than $2,000. The maximum recovery would be almost $6,000, to Christiana Pitassi, one of the named Plaintiffs, and no class member would receive less than $25. The other two named Plaintiffs would receive $1,305.36 and $5,172.62, respectively. The Plaintiffs now move for final approval and certification, and they request an attorneys' fee award of $112,200, the maximum fee to which the defendants agreed not to object. The counsel also has lodged confidential copies of the parties' mediations briefs, which the Court has reviewed in camera. The Defendants do not oppose these motions. The Court held a hearing on Oct. 8, 2021. Harvey Sohnen appeared for the plaintiffs, Barbara Cotter appeared for Black Diamond, and Bryan Hawkins appeared for Basic Resources. II. Discussion A. Rule 23 Class "Rule 23 governs class certification." "As a threshold matter, a class must first meet the four requirements of Rule 23(a): (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation." "In addition, the class must meet the requirements of at least one of the `three different types of classes' set forth in Rule 23(b)." For classes proposed under Rule 23(b)(3), such as the proposed class in the case, "a court must find that 'the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.'" For the reasons explained in the Court's previous order, Judge Mueller holds that the proposed classes meet the requirements of Rule 23. No new evidence or other developments suggest otherwise. No proposed class member has objected or opted out. The proposed class is certified. As when the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval, several aspects of the proposed settlement agreement weigh in favor of approving it finally. First, the named Plaintiffs have represented the class adequately. Second, the mediation that produced the proposed settlement agreement bears several hallmarks of arm's-length negotiations. Third, the method the settlement agreement uses to distribute the net award is objective and lends support to counsel's claim that the agreement treats class members equitably. Fourth, the settlement agreement offers class members monetary compensation sooner than they would receive it if the case were litigated through the completion of arbitration, the judicial action, any motion practice related to confirmation of the arbitration, and any appeals. Fifth, Judge Mueller holds that the settlement agreement permits the class members to receive a certain sum now rather than an uncertain sum later. After considering the parties' confidential mediation briefs and counsel's analysis, she is satisfied that the total value of the proposed settlement is not so steeply discounted that it is not "adequate" under Rule 23(e)(2). She also finds the settlement agreement to be reasonable despite the substantial incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs. The proposed cost reimbursement is also reasonable. The amount, $11,307.99, is modest for a case of so many years' duration. Finally, only one of the three commonly cited "red flags" of collusion might be cause for concern: The parties' clear-sailing agreement. Judge Mueller is persuaded, however, after reviewing the parties' supplemental submissions, that the risk of collusion is low despite the Defendants' agreement not to contest the proposed attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards. The agreed amounts are relatively modest, and any amounts not awarded would revert to the class. B. FLSA Collective Action For the reasons she discussed, Judge Mueller also approves the terms of the proposed FLSA collective action settlement. She finds that the members of the proposed collective action assert violations of the FLSA, are "similarly situated," have affirmatively opted in, and the dispute is "bona fide" under the commonly applied test. C. PAGA Claims The PAGA provides that courts may exercise their discretion to lower the amount of civil penalties awarded "if, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, to do otherwise would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory." Because state law enforcement agencies are the "real parties in interest" for PAGA claims, the court's task in reviewing the settlement is to ensure the state's interest in enforcing the law is upheld. But the PAGA does not establish any more specific standard for evaluating PAGA settlements. Nor has any California state court established a "benchmark for PAGA settlements, either on their own terms or in relation to the recovery on other claims in the action." The state courts have held only that trial courts have "discretion" to reduce awards "for technical violations that cause no injury" and must consider whether the underlying violations were "inadvertent." Given the nature of the alleged violations and settlement agreement, Judge Mueller holds that these considerations are not relevant. In the absence of specific guidance from the state courts, the Court and at least one other California federal district court have referred to the factors in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). These factors are not unique to class action lawsuits. They bear on the fairness of settlements involving many plaintiffs. The Court, as it has before, finds these factors useful in evaluating a PAGA settlement. And for the reasons she discussed, Judge Mueller holds that those factors favor approval of the settlement agreement. D. Fees & Costs Judge Mueller holds that although the proposed 33% award is above the benchmark, she finds it is reasonable. The case has been pending for many years, the Plaintiffs' counsel accepted representation on a contingency basis, the Defendants firmly contested the Plaintiffs' claims, and the class faced many legal and evidentiary obstacles. Although the fee award is large in relative terms, it is not a windfall in absolute terms. And the total award, inclusive of fees for time recorded by non-lawyer staff, is approximately $760,000. As a result, awarding the counsel's proposed $112,200 fee is already equivalent to slashing the award by more than 80%. Judge Mueller is not persuaded, after reviewing the line-by-line billing records, that a steeper reduction would be justified or fair. The amount of the hypothetical lodestar award supports the counsel's fee request and confirms it is reasonable. III. Conclusion The motions for final approval and fees are granted. The parties are ordered to comply with and carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Every person in the California Settlement Class will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and be deemed to release and forever discharge all Released State Law Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Every person in the FLSA Settlement Class who filed a consent form with the court or sent an opt-in claim form to the Settlement Administrator is an FLSA Settlement Class Member and will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and be deemed to release and forever discharge all Released Federal Law Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Every person in the PAGA Settlement Class will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and be deemed to release and forever discharge all Released PAGA Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over the administration and effectuation of the Settlement including, but not limited to, the ultimate disbursal to the participating Settlement Class Members, payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, the service awards to the Class Representatives, payment to the Settlement Administrator, and other issues related to the Settlement. Nothing in the Order will preclude any action to enforce the Parties' obligations under the Settlement or under this order. The Plaintiff will notify the Court within seven days after administration and effectuation of the settlement is complete. The Order resolves ECF Nos. 104 and 105. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4x393edc from Leagle.com. BOB DEAN: Verdin's Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANICE VERDIN, ET AL. v. BOB DEAN, JR., ET AL. SECTION: "A" (3), Civil Action No. 21-1976 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification as a Collective Action and for Approval of Notice. Before the Court is the Motion for Conditional Certification filed by Plaintiffs Janice Verdin, Catherine Naquin, Mary Helmer, Olivia Helmer, and Lauren Helmer. Defendants Bob Dean, Jr., Maison De'Ville Nursing Home of Harvey, L.L.C., St. Elizabeth's Caring, L.L.C., Raceland Manor Nursing Home, Inc., Maison De'Ville Nursing Home, Inc., River Palms Nursing and Rehab, L.L.C., Uptown Healthcare Center, L.L.C., Bob Dean Enterprises, Inc., and Louisiana Healthcare Consultants, L.L.C, oppose the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on May 25, 2022, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. The claims in the action arise out of work performed at an Independence, Louisiana evacuation facility in the days immediately before, during, and after the landfall of Hurricane Ida in August 2021. Specifically, the named Plaintiffs -- Janice Verdin, Catherine Naquin, Mary Helmer, Olivia Helmer, and Lauren Helmer -- were among the nursing staff that were directed to report to a warehouse in Independence to ride out Hurricane Ida along with the evacuated nursing home residents. The Plaintiffs allege that during the period Aug. 27, 2021 through Sept. 2, 2021, they worked excessively long hours and were not paid in full for the work they performed. All of the named Plaintiffs were employed by South Lafourche Nursing & Rehab, which is the operating tradename for Raceland Manor Nursing Home, Inc. Mr. Bob Dean, Jr. owns South Lafourche Nursing & Rehab, as well as the other defendant entities. The crux of the Petition is an unpaid wage claim grounded on a text message received by the Plaintiffs from one of Dean's employees; the text message contained hurricane daily pay rates for LPNs, CNAs, RNs, Ancillary(s), and Salary RNs, and these pay rates were very generous. For instance, plaintiff Janice Verdin is an LPN who normally receives an hourly rate of $30.75, with time and a half for overtime. The hurricane rate that she claims to have been promised was $2,250 per day. But even though Verdin worked for a duration of seven days during the period that the hurricane daily rate was supposed to be in place, her pay stub for the period Aug. 16, 2021 through Aug. 31, 2021, amounted to a net pay of only $3,770.32. Ms. Verdin is alleged to be a manager or supervisory level employee. She claims that she is entitled to the promised hurricane rate of $2,250 per day plus overtime pay. The Petition contains no allegations as to the other named plaintiffs except that they are similarly situated" to each other because they were not paid the full amount of their wages due for the work that they performed. A jury trial is scheduled for Dec. 5, 2022. Relying on the two-step certification process articulated in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), the Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. Judge Zainey will deny the motion for three reasons. First, in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021), the Fifth Circuit unequivocally rejected the Lusardi two-step certification process in FLSA cases. Therefore, courts in this circuit no longer apply that approach. All of the Plaintiffs' cited cases pre-date the Swales decision. Second, the Plaintiffs have failed to articulate how the failure to pay the allegedly promised daily rate presents a cognizable claim under federal law. The only claim that the Court discerns at this juncture to which the FLSA would apply is the overtime claim, and if Verdin proves that she is entitled to the hurricane daily rate, it is unclear how she believes that an hourly overtime rate would apply. Finally, as to the sole FLSA claim asserted, i.e., failure to pay overtime, Judge Zainey gleans no factual allegations to support the otherwise conclusory assertion that the putative class members would be similarly situated to each other. The only connection that the Court gleans between Ms. Verdin and Mr. Michael Rivers, who is not a plaintiff but submitted a declaration in support of certification, is that they both worked for companies owned by Bob Dean, Jr. and they both contend that they were promised a hurricane day rate that they were not paid. It is not clear how the other named plaintiffs are similarly situated to each other or to Verdin. In sum, Judge Zainey is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that certification of an FLSA collective action is appropriate. Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/65ztyryk from Leagle.com. BOFI HOLDING: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-CV-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. I. Background A. Plaintiffs' Pleadings and Defendants' Challenges On Oct. 13, 2015, former BofI auditor Charles Matthew Erhart filed a federal whistleblower complaint -- Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-2287-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015). As the Plaintiff detailed in the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the New York Times reported about Mr. Erhart's whistleblower complaint, and the BofI stock declined by 30% between Oct. 13, 2015 and Oct. 14, 2015 dropping from a closing price of $35.50 to $24.78. Several BofI investors commenced putative class actions following the filing of the Erhart Complaint. The Court consolidated the actions and appointed Houston Municipal Employees Pension System ("HMEPS" or "Plaintiff") as Lead Plaintiff and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as the lead counsel for the consolidated class. On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"). On May 11, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC as to all claims for failure to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter. On Sept. 27, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend as to the other individual defendants. On Nov. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). On Dec. 23, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, as to all claims, for failure to plead falsity and scienter. On May 23, 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' motion. The Court upheld the the Plaintiff's claims of alleged misstatements regarding BofI's loan underwriting practices and internal controls and compliance infrastructure. It upheld the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claims against Defendants Micheletti, Grinberg, Mosich and Argalas. On June 20, 2017, the Defendants filed an Answer to the SAC. On Sept. 29, 2017, the Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). On Dec. 1, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed the TAC on Dec. 22, 2017. The TAC alleges BofI made material misrepresentations relating to (1) BofI's internal controls, compliance infrastructure, and risk management; (2) the Bank's underwriting standards and loan credit quality; and (3) government and regulatory investigations. On Jan. 19, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing again that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege loss causation. On March 21, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion, dismissed the action with prejudice, and entered judgment against the Plaintiffs. B. Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit Appeal The Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal and entry of judgment to the Ninth Circuit. On Oct. 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, reversing and remanding in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's finding that the Seeking Alpha articles did not quality as corrective disclosures, and that the Plaintiff failed to allege the falsity of alleged misstatements regarding government and/or regulatory investigations. It denied the Defendants' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied on Oct. 4, 2021. C. Remand and Discovery Following the Ninth Circuit's remand to the Court, the Court directed the Parties to begin discovery. Beginning in December 2020, the Parties exchanged "voluminous discovery and vigorously litigated a substantial number of issues." At the time the Parties reached a settlement in principle, three motions regarding objections to rulings on discovery disputes were pending before the Court. D. Class Certification On May 28, 2021, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class of investors. The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing primarily that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). On Aug. 20, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion. On Aug. 24, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Order certified a Class consisting of "all persons and entities that, during the period from Sept. 4, 2013 through Oct. 13, 2015, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of BofI, as well as purchasers of BofI call options and sellers of BofI put options, and were damaged thereby." It also appointed HMEPS as Class Representative, and Lieff Cabraser as Class Counsel. The Court approved the Plaintiff's proposed notice plan and directed notice to the Class on Dec. 2, 2021. The notice period concluded on March 21, 2022. The Class Counsel received only nine requests for exclusion, only one of which was a timely request. E. Mediation and Settlement In late 2021, the Parties retained the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) of JAMS to explore settlement. On Jan. 13, 2022, the parties held a mediation session with Judge Weinstein over Zoom, attended by representatives from HMEPS, the Defendants, the Defendants' insurers, and the counsel for all parties. The parties communicated through Judge Weinstein thereafter about potential resolution of the action. On Feb. 23, 2022, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the matter. They notified the Court of the settlement, and the Court issued an order vacating all deadlines, scheduling orders, and motion hearings in the action. On Feb. 28, 2022, the parties signed a Term Sheet "reflecting the material terms of the agreement" which was modified on March 7, 2022. On April 13, 2022, the parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. F. Settlement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Amount of $14.1 million to a common Settlement Fund on behalf of the already-certified Class. It provides that the total Settlement Amount will be used to pay: (a) any Taxes; (b) any Notice and Administration Costs; (c) any Fee and Expense Award awarded by the Court. The balance remaining in the Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants. No portion of the $14.1 million Settlement Fund will revert to the Defendants. After the deduction of notice-related costs and Court-approved award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service award to HMEPS as Class Representative, the Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all the Class Members. The Plaintiff also seeks appointment of JND Legal Administration to serve as Settlement Administrator. The Court previously appointed JND to serve as the Notice Administrator in its order granting the Plaintiff's motion for issuance of class notice. The Proposed Notice, attached to the Plaintiff's moving papers at Exhibit A-1, discloses material information to a Class Member's decision whether to accept, object to, or opt out of the Settlement, including: (1) the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including the Settlement Amount; (2) the history of this litigation; (3) the relief to the Class Members and releases to the Defendants and the Defendants' Releasees that the Settlement will provide; (4) the maximum award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of reasonable expenses to the Class Counsel as well as the service award to the Class Representative; (5) the date, time and place (to be decided by the Court) of the hearing on Final Approval of class action settlement; and (6) the procedures and deadlines for opting out of the settlement or submitting comments or objections. II. Discussion Judge Curiel finds that the Settlement Agreement is an adequate, fair, and reasonable resolution to the action. He finds that (i) the Lead Plaintiff and the Class Counsel have adequately represented Class Members throughout the litigation; (ii) there is no indication that the distribution and allocation methods proposed by the Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator will result in unequitable treatment of Class Members; (iii) the method of allocating and distributing relief is simple and effective, and not "unduly demanding" under Rule 23(e); (iv) a $15,000 service award is reasonable and does not raise any concerns about the equitable treatment of the Class Members in the action; (v) the terms of the forthcoming motion for attorneys' fees ($3,525,000) and expenses does not present a barrier to finding the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable; and (vi) the Court is not prepared to approve the proposed language granting Lead Counsel the discretion to authorize disbursement, without further approval from the Court, of up to $350,000 for reasonable costs incurred notifying the Class Members of the Settlement and administering the Settlement. III. Conclusion Judge Curiel grants the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Curiel conditionally approves of the Proposed Notice Form subject to revisions consistent with the Court's instructions at the hearing on the matter, and the Order. The Plaintiff is instructed to re-submit a Proposed Notice Form that clarifies the deductions for all fees and costs, including fees for Claims Administration. Judge Curiel approves of (i) the Proof of Claim Form and (ii) the Plan of Allocation detailed by the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel in their moving papers. Judge Curiel preliminary approves of the Parties' Settlement Agreement to resolve the Action, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. The Court previously certified a Class on Aug. 24, 2021, which is defined in the Court's Class Certification Order. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on Oct. 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The hearing will take place at United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. The Notice of Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Motion for Fee and Expense Award (Notice) will be given to the Class. The Class Counsel is authorized to retain JND Legal Administration to supervise and administer the notice procedure in connection with the proposed Settlement as well as the processing of Claims. The Notice will be given follows: a. not later than 21 calendar days after the date of entry of the Order, the Claims Administrator will cause a copy of the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form, to be mailed by first-class mail to potential Class Members at the addresses set forth in the records provided by BofI or in the records which BofI caused to be provided, or who otherwise may be identified through further reasonable effort; b. contemporaneously with the mailing of the Notice and Claim Form, the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice, the Summary Notice, and the Claim Form to be posted on a website to be developed for the Settlement, from which copies of the Notices and Claim Form can be downloaded; c. note later than 10 calendar days after the Notice Date, the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice, to be published in PRNewswire and Investors Business Daily; and d. not later than seven calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, the Class Counsel will serve on the Defendants' Counsel and file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such mailing and publication. Judge Curiel (a) approves, as to form and content, the Notice, the Claim Form, and the Summary Notice. The date and time of the Settlement Hearing will be included in the Notice and Summary Notice before they are mailed and published, respectively. Brokers and other nominees who purchased or otherwise acquired BofI common stock shares, or purchased BofI call options or sold BofI put options, during the Class Period for the benefit of another person or entity shall: (a) within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice and Claim Form to forward to all such beneficial owners/purchasers and within seven calendar days of receipt of those Notice and Claim Form forward them to all such beneficial owners/purchasers; or (b) within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, send a list of the names, addresses, and/or email addresses of all such beneficial owners/purchasers to the Claims Administrator in which event the Claims Administrator will promptly mail/email the Notice and Claim Form to such beneficial owners/purchasers. Where the Claims Administrator receives a valid email address, they will email the Notice and Claim Form to beneficial owners/purchasers. Upon full compliance with the Order, such nominees may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred in complying with the Order, in an amount not to exceed $0.50 plus postage; or $0.05 per transmitted by email; or $0.05 per name, mailing address, and email address (to the extent available) provided to the Claims Administrator, by providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought. Such properly documented expenses incurred by nominees in compliance with the terms of the Order will be paid from the Settlement Fund, with any disputes as to the reasonableness or documentation of expenses incurred subject to review by the Court. In order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund, in the event the Settlement is effected in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, each claimant will take the following actions and be subject to the following: a. A properly completed and executed Claim Form must be submitted to the Claims Administrator, at the post office box indicated in the Notice and Claim Form, postmarked no later than 30 days after the Settlement Hearing. Such deadline may be further extended by Order of the Court. Each Claim Form will be deemed to have been submitted when legibly postmarked (if properly addressed and mailed by first-class mail). Any Claim Form submitted in any other manner will be deemed to have been submitted when it was actually received by the Claims Administrator at the address designated in the Notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Class Counsel will have the discretion (but not an obligation) to accept late-submitted claims for processing by the Claims Administrator so long as distribution of the Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants is not materially delayed thereby, but will bear no liability for failing to accept such late claims. b. The Claim Form submitted by each Class Member must satisfy the following conditions: (i) it must be properly filled out, signed, and submitted in a timely manner in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subparagraph; (ii) it must be accompanied by adequate supporting documentation for the transactions reported therein, in the form of broker confirmation slips, broker account statements, an authorized statement from the broker containing the transactional information found in a broker confirmation slip, or such other documentation as is deemed adequate by the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel; (iii) if the person executing the act on behalf of the Class Member must be provided with the Claim Form; and (iv) the Claim Form must be complete and contain no material deletions or modifications of any of the printed matter contained therein and must be signed under penalty of perjury. c. Once the Claims Administrator has considered a timely submitted Claim Form, it will determine whether such claim is valid, deficient, or rejected. For each claim determined to be either deficient or rejected, the Claims Administrator will send a deficiency letter or rejection letter as appropriate, describing the basis on which the claim was so determined. Persons who timely submit a Claim Form that is deficient or otherwise rejected will be afforded a reasonable time (at least 20 calendar days) to cure such deficiency if it will appear that such deficiency may be cured. d. For the filing of and all determinations concerning their Claim Form, each Class Member will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. Any Class Member who does not request exclusion from the Class may file a written objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for a Fee and Expense Award (including reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses, including time, to the Lead Plaintiff) and appear and show cause, if he, she or it has any cause, why the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the requested Fee and Expense Award (including reimbursement to the Lead Plaintiff) should not be approved; provided, however, that no Class Member will be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the requested Fee and Expense Award unless that person or entity has filed a written objection with the Court and served copies of such objection on Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth below such that they are received no later than 60 calendar days after the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court will consider all proper objections even if a Class Member does not attend the Settlement Hearing. Until otherwise ordered by the Court, the Court stays all proceedings in the Action other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Lead Plaintiff, all the Class Members, and each of them, and anyone who acts or purports to act on their behalf, will not institute, commence or prosecute any action which asserts Released Claims against the Defendants. Upon requesting and receiving permission from the Court, the Escrow Agent may disburse all reasonable costs (up to $350,000) incurred in notifying Class Members of Settlement and administering the Settlement. The Class Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare any tax returns and any other tax reporting form for or in respect to the Settlement Fund, to pay from the Settlement Fund any Taxes owed with respect to the Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or filings in respect thereof without further order of the Court in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Stipulation. The Defendants will provide timely service of any notices that might be required pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. The following schedule will govern the Class Counsel's motion for final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and the Class Counsel's request for a Fee and Expense Award: a. The Class Counsel's opening papers in support of its Fee an Expense Award (including reimbursement to Lead Plaintiff) will be filed 45 days after the entry of the Order; b. Class Counsel's motion for final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and any responses to any Class Member objections will be filed 28 days before the Settlement Hearing. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Amended Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4m4yh38k from Leagle.com. BRAVO ARKOMA: MRC Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKnight Realty Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Bravo Arkoma, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00428-KEW (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for final approval of the: 1. Proposed class action Settlement; 2. Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and 3. Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation. On April 12, 2022, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement, approving the form of notice, and setting a date of July 18, 2022, for the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court already certified the following Settlement Class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who received oil-and- gas proceeds payments from Defendant Bravo Arkoma, LLC from oil and/or gas wells located in the State of Oklahoma between November 1, 2015 and April 30, 2021, or whose oil-and-gas proceeds were escheated to a government entity by Defendant between November 1, 2015 and April 30, 2021, or whose suspended oil- and-gas proceeds were transferred by Defendant to Mustang or WSGP between November 1, 2015 and April 30, 2021." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (3) Defendant, its affiliates, affiliated predecessors, and their employees, officers, and directors. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HmzM58at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Bischoff Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE BISCHOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00388-DAO 9D. Utah, June 8, 2022) is class action arising out of the targeted cyber-attack against the Defendant that allowed a third party to access its computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal information belonging to tens of thousands of current and former students, employees, and independent contractors (the "Cyber-Attack"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Cyber-Attack, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable injury and damages in the form of the substantial and present risk of fraud and identity theft from their unlawfully accessed and compromised private and confidential information, including Social Security numbers, lost value of their private and confidential information, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyber-attacks of this type, says the suit. C.R. ENGLAND, INC. provides transportation services. The Company offers truck driving training, satellite tracking, communication, fleet billing, load tracking, electronic commerce, order consolidation, route optimization, and transport modeling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Trevor C. Lang, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Newhouse Building Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com tlang@hohtrial.Com -and- Gary M. Klinger, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com jnelson@milberg.Com CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Camber Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-KT Report for the transition period from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2022, that on October 29, 2021, a class action complaint No. 4:21-cv-03574 was filed against the company, its CEO and CFO captioned "Ronald E. Coggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camber Energy, Inc., et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as a result of the defendants' violations of federal securities laws. Camber is a Nevada corporation primarily engaged in the acquisition, development and sale of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids from various known productive geological formations in Kansas, Louisiana and Texas and holds interests in non-producing wells in Mississippi. CG-HHC INC: Fails to Pay OT Compensation to Non-Exempt Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CG-HHC, INC. d/b/a CAREGIVER, A STEP UP c/o CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-01003 (N.D. Ohio, June 9, 2022) is a collective action arising from Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a "class action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Wage Standards Act. Since June 2020, the Defendant has employed Plaintiff as a residential manager. The Defendant employed similarly-situated employees at its facilities throughout Ohio. As a residential manager, Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees did not engage in "managing" other employees, did not direct any other employees' work, did not have the authority to hire, fire, or promote other employees, did not perform work directly related to Defendant's management or general business operations, did not exercise discretion or independent judgment with respect to significant matters, and did not perform work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction, says the suit. The Defendant operates residential care centers for adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities throughout Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com CHAPTER NY LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chapter NY LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Chapter NY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04752 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chapter NY -- http://chapter-ny.com/-- is a gallery exhibit located in New York City.[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 CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Payment of Insurance Claims --------------------------------------------------------- BEACH DISTRICT SURGERY CENTER, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INS. CO.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03931 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for misrepresenting the nature of payments it would make to out-of-network California medical providers that had agreements with a complementary network called Multiplan. According to the complaint, Cigna imprints a Multiplan logo on its insureds' insurance cards only for those eligible to receive discounted rates when using an out-of-network non-participating medical provider or facility that participates in the Multiplan Network. The Multiplan logo is intended to and does represent to patients and out-of-network medical providers, including Plaintiff, that Cigna will apply the payment rates pursuant to the provider's Multiplan agreement, if the provider has such an agreement. However, Cigna's representations in this regard are false, says the suit. The Plaintiff has rendered medical services to numerous patients with Cigna health insurance that have insurance cards bearing the Multiplan logo. However, when the Plaintiff submitted claims to Cigna for medical services rendered to such patients, Cigna did not pay these claims at the rates provided by the Multiplan agreement despite confirming that Multiplan rates were applicable—instead, Cigna paid far less, thus damaging the Plaintiff, the suit added. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers life and health insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Natalie S. Pang, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com - and - Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan@stieglitzlaw.com CINTAS CORPORATION: Calendar Order Entered in Bearup Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP, JR., et al., v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an calendar order pursuant to the filing of the Rule 26(f) Report by the parties on May 20, 2022 as follows: 1. Deadline to begin making initial July 18, 2022 disclosures: 2. Deadline to complete initial September 26, 2022 disclosures: 3. Deadline for motion to amend April 27, 2023 pleadings/add parties: 4. Deadline for motions related June 27, 2023 to pleadings: 5. Deadline for disclosure of June 27, 2023 non-expert (fact) witnesses: 6. Fact Discovery deadline: February 27, 2024 7. Deadlines for disclosure of expert witnesses and submission of expert reports: Plaintiff expert report(s): March 28, 2024 Defendant expert report(s): May 28, 2024 Disclosure and report of July 12, 2024 rebuttal experts: 8. Expert Discovery deadline: September 25, 2024 9. Deadline for Motion for November 26, 2024 Class Certification: 10. Deadline for Opposition to January 28, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: 11. Deadline for Reply in Support February 27, 2025 of Motion for Class Certification: 12. Dispositive motions deadline: 45 days after decision on Motion for Class Certification Cintas Corporation No. 2 provides corporate identity uniforms. The Company offers flame resistant clothing, mats, mops, shop towels, and other ancillary items, as well as specializes in first aid, safety, and fire protection products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xmJMqq at no extra charge.[CC] CORECIVIC INC: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al., v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file class certification brief and exhibits under seal. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file class certification brief and exhibits under seal to the extent that Plaintiffs may file the requested documents under restricted access. The Plaintiffs are ordered to: (1) file under restricted access complete, unredacted versions of the Class Certification Brief and certain exhibits thereto on June 17, 2022; and (2) file public versions of the Class Certification Brief, deposition transcript excerpts, and Plaintiffs' experts' reports redacting quotations from or references to information designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY no later than July 1, 2022. CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aXfpPD at no extra charge.[CC] CREE INC: Court Junks Wedra Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE WEDRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREE, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The motions to strike and exclude the reports and opinions of plaintiff's experts are denied without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions. All counsel are directed to appear for a status conference on July 15, 2022, at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom 620 at the White Plains courthouse. By July 8, 2022, the parties are directed to submit a joint letter addressing all case management issues going forward, including inter alia a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery on the merits of plaintiff's claims, Judge Briccetti says. The Plaintiff Stephanie Wedra brings this purported class action against defendant Cree, Inc., for allegedly misrepresenting the longevity of defendant's lightbulbs. Plaintiff brings state law claims for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of New York's General Business Law ("GBL") and for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The parties have submitted briefs and declarations with supporting exhibits, which reflect the following factual background. The Defendant manufactures and sells light emitting diode ("LED") lightbulbs, which are generally advertised as energy-saving alternatives to traditional incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent lamps. The Defendant manufactures three categories of LED lightbulbs: Standard A-1 Type, Reflector, and Specialty. The Plaintiff contends the packaging for each of defendant's LED lightbulbs makes at least one of the following types of claims regarding the lightbulb's longevity: (i) cost savings, such as "$226 Lifetime Energy Savings"; (ii) longevity and performance comparisons to other LED bulbs, such as "Our LED bulbs work better and last longer"; and (iii) guaranty or warranty claims, such as "100% Satisfaction Guaranteed." The Plaintiff claims she purchased a two-pack of defendant's 60-watt lightbulbs at a Home Depot store for approximately $10 to $20. She alleges she reviewed and relied on the representations on the packaging of the lightbulbs regarding their longevity as part of her decision to purchase the lightbulbs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aWnlAG at no extra charge.[CC] EAST GRAND: Rajabova Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RUSHANA RAJABOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EAST GRAND MARKET INC., and ABROR SAIDOV, individually, Case No. 516688/2022 (NY Sup., Kings Cty., June 9, 2022) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: (i) the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) section 652(1); and (ii) the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of accurate requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at hire containing specific categories of accurate information, NYLL section 195(1). The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, a Brooklyn supermarket and its owner, which employed Plaintiff as a cashier from June 25, 2021 through July 14, 2021. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff the wages lawfully owed to her under the NYLL, as the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the statutorily required minimum wage for the hours that Plaintiff worked each workweek under the NYLL. Additionally, the Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to provide the Plaintiff with a wage statement on each payday that accurately stated the hours that Plaintiff worked each week or a wage notice upon her date of hire that accurately stated her regular and overtime rates of pay. The Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage was not limited to Plaintiff, but also extended to all of Defendants' non-managerial employees, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Civil Practice Rules and Laws (CPLR) section 901, on her own behalf, as well as on behalf of those who are similarly-situated who, during the applicable statute of limitations, were subjected to violations of NYLL and NYCRR, the suit asserts. Grand Market is a corporation that owns and operates a supermarket located at 1201 Quentin Road, Brooklyn, New York. On or around June 25, 2021, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work in the store as a cashier. As a non-managerial employee, Plaintiff was responsible to manage the cash register and assist customers with their purchases. The Plaintiff worked in this role until around July 14, 2021. For her work, the Defendants paid Plaintiff $11.00 per hour for all hours that she worked. As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for at the legally-mandated minimum wage rate of $15.00 per hour for all hours that she worked. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis by cash. On each occasion when Defendants paid Plaintiff, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a wage statement that accurately listed Plaintiff's actual hours worked for that week, added the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire STEVENSON MARINO LLP 105 Maxess Road, Suite 124 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 EDUCATION CREDIT: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kincaid v. Education Credit Mgt. Corp., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00863 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order directing the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days with proposed dates for filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation. ECMC operates as a non-profit organization.[CC] EVOLENT HEALTH: Class Certification Hearing Extended to July 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01031-MSN-TCB (E.D.Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion for Leave to Present Live Expert Testimony and To File Supplemental Brief Opposing Class Certification; 2. extending the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification scheduled for June 24, 2022 to July 8, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.; 3. directing the parties to confer and shall file a joint motion by June 17, 2022 setting forth the parties' proposed schedule addressing briefing and hearing on motions for summary judgment; and 4. suspending the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for June 30, 2022 pending resolution of the motions for summary judgment. The Plymouth County Retirement System provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits. Evolent Health is a population health management services organization. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xTMJAr at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL SAVINGS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott v. Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 3:21-cv-00291 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered an order that class certification deadline is Sept. 27, 2022. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Federal Savings Bank is a veteran-owned bank, with a focus on VA loans and FHA loans for military and first time home buyers.[CC] FIDELITY DESIGN HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity Design House US, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fidelity Design House US, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04745 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fidelity Design House US, Inc. doing business as Fidelity Denim -- https://fidelitydenim.com/ -- makes the world's best jeans crafted in Los Angeles using only the finest Italian and Japanese denim.[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 FLOWERS FOODS: Settles Bowen and Aucoin Suits in Maine ------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2022, that on April 26, 2022, the court approved an agreement to settle the cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine captioned "Bowen et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-00411 and "Aucoin et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al," Case No. 1:20-cv-00410) for a payment of $16.5 million, comprising $9 million in settlement funds and $7.5 million in attorneys' fees. Flowers Foods, Inc. is a bakery chain based in Thomasville GA. FOOT SOLUTIONS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Foot Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03348 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Foot Solutions -- https://footsolutions.com/ -- is a global franchise retailer in the health and wellness industry specializing in custom orthotics and complementary footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FORD MOTOR: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Tucker Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TUCKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. (), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification and striking class allegations from the Third Amended Petition filed by Plaintiff Michael Tucker. The Plaintiff in this putative class action seeks to certify two classes: a class of all Missouri purchasers of 2011–2018 Focus vehicles (the Declaratory Relief Class), and a class of all Missouri purchasers of 2011–2018 Focus vehicles that exhibited any degree of rust on the subframe or undercarriage (the Manifestation Class). But it is apparent from the outset that neither class can legally be certified. The putative Declaratory Relief Class cannot be certified because it includes countless putative class members who have not sustained an Article III injury and therefore lack standing -- and because Plaintiff himself lacks standing to pursue declaratory relief, the Defendant contends. The putative Manifestation Class cannot be certified because (1) it includes putative class members who have no standing and cannot be ascertained, and (2) the need to determine the existence of corrosion and its cause defeats predominance. If this Court nevertheless determines that Plaintiff can continue to pursue his class claims, at least until he moves for class certification and is required to prove all of the requirements of Rule 23, any class should be limited now to purchasers of 2018 Focus vehicles, i.e., the model vehicle Plaintiff purchased. Plaintiff has no standing to represent consumers who purchased vehicles he did not purchase, and he should not be allowed to pursue discovery with respect to those vehicles. Further, Plaintiff is precluded by the terms of his express warranty from litigating his warranty-related claims on a class basis. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QoR2uv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John M. Thomas, Esq. Krista L. Lenart, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 2723 South State Street, Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 214-7660 E-mail: jthomas@dykema.com klenart@dykema.com - and - Laura K. Brooks, Esq. Stephen Bledsoe, Esq. Berkowitz Oliver LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 Facsimile: (816) 561-1888 E-mail: lbrooks@berkowitzoliver.com sbledsoe@berkowitzoliver.com GALERIE BUCHHOLZ: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Miller Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GALERIE BUCHHOLZ NY INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04843 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the websites they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. Assistant Attorney General Boyd's letter provides: The Department [of Justice] first articulated its interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations' websites over 20 years ago. This interpretation is consistent with the ADA's title III requirement that the goods, services, privileges, or activities provided by places of public accommodation be equally accessible to people with disabilities. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's website, https://www.galeriebuchholz.de/, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit added. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. Defendant Galerie Buchholz operates the Galerie Buchholz online and physical art gallery as well as the Galerie Buchholz website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States. This online and physical art gallery constitutes a place of public accommodation. The Defendant's Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods including information about purchasing art pieces and other products available in their gallery location, and to ascertain information relating to location and hours of their physical art gallery, and pricing, exhibit information, featured artwork and artists, and privacy policies on their website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@gottlieb.legal GEICO CASUALTY: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Day ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA DAY v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-02103-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to modify class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- The Defendants' deadline to August 10, 2022 file response: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to September 15, 2022 file reply: GEICO operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OfLlx6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Morgan, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 80 S 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (877) 448-0492 The Defendant is represented by: Damon N. Vocke, Esq. Ronald M. Lepinskas, Esq. Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S 17th St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 GLENS FALLS: Richard Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE RICHARD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK, ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AND SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00734-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting final approval of the class action settlement; 2. granting final certification of the Settlement Class; 3. granting Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs; 4. granting Plaintiff's request for approval of class administrator expenses; and 5. granting Plaintiff's request for a service award to the class representative, together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Glens Falls is one of two subsidiary banks of the multi-bank holding company Arrow Financial Corporation. The Bank was founded in 1851 in Glens Falls. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tzrcdJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Patrick Lannon, Esq. CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC AXA Tower I, 15th Floor 100 Madison Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 449-9500 Facsimile: (315) 449-0804 E-mail: plannon@cherundololawfirm.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com GOT GUARD: Hooks Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEX HOOKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOT GUARD, INC.; WARNER SECURITY, INC.; NIYAZ NOMAIR; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22VECV00776 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide proper meal periods, failure to provide proper rest periods, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard from 2020 through approximately September of 2021. Got Guard, Inc. is a provider of security services in California. Warner Security, Inc. is a provider of security services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 733-2498 Facsimile: (562) 628-5501 E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com HAWKINS NEW YORK: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawkins New York, LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hawkins New York, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04763 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hawkins New York -- https://www.hawkinsnewyork.com/ -- offers luxurious, accessible, responsibly sourced home goods.[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 HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Allowed to File Fourth Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ERIC KETAYI, and MIRYAM KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 20-cv-1198-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order: (i) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint; and (ii) denying as moot Defendant Alliance for Consumers USA, Inc.'s Motion to Partially Dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. II. ACUSA's Motion to Dismiss On Sept. 27, 2021, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Alliance for Consumers USA ("ACUSA"). The Court issued an order granting ACUSA's motion to set aside default, finding that "ACUSA's failure to plead or otherwise respond, which led to the Clerk's entry of default, was excusable and not culpable conduct." It ordered ACUSA to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint by Dec. 23, 2021. On Dec. 23, 2021, ACUSA filed the Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint now before the Court. While ACUSA awaited the Court's ruling on the motion to set aside default, the Court considered motions to dismiss filed by the other Defendants in the action. It granted in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss in a Dec. 3, 2021 Order. As relevant to the instant motions, in opposing the motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, the Plaintiffs requested leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery to clarify Defendant Cost Containment Group's involvement in the conduct alleged in the Plaintiffs' TAC. The Court's Order granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend for lack of personal jurisdiction, but also granted in part the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional discovery, allowing "limited jurisdictional discovery into Cost Containment Group ("CCG")'s involvement in the verification, enrollment, and fulfillment process for the Plaintiffs' insurance plans." On Dec. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs served jurisdictional discovery on CCG, including a notice of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. CCG informed the Plaintiffs that they would not produce a witness for the deposition, and the Parties alerted the Court to the impasse concerning whether CCG would be required to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent on jurisdictional issues. Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Crawford ordered that the deposition be completed by March 4, 2022, and ordered that the Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint by March 18, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend their complaint on March 18, 2022. Upon Judge Curiel's review of the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint ("4AC"), it appears that the Plaintiffs have now omitted the cause of action that was Count One of the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). ACUSA's motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC seeks only to dismiss Count One of the Complaint, "on the basis that they lack standing to seek injunctive relief." At this stage in the proceedings, the Plaintiffs no longer seek to pursue Count One of their TAC, which alleged the Defendants' violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Judge Curiel grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint and file a 4AC. Accordingly, ACUSA's motion to dismiss Count 1 of the Complaint is now moot. Judge Curiel denies as moot ACUSA's motion to partially dismiss the TAC. III. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint The Plaintiffs now ask for leave to file a 4AC. In support of the motion, they assert that the changes to the TAC reflected in the proposed 4AC "serve two primary purposes: (1) to add additional jurisdictional allegations uncovered during the jurisdictional discovery against CCG" as authorized by the Court's December Order granting in part CCG's motion to dismiss and allowing Plaintiffs to pursue limited jurisdictional discovery. Defendant CCG opposed the motion. The first three factors the Court considers under Rule 15(a)(2) is whether the amended pleading is the product of undue delay, whether the request for leave to amend is made in bad faith or with dilatory motive, and whether the movant has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by amendment. CCG's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion presents no arguments on these three factors. First, taking into consideration the procedural history of the case, and the Plaintiffs' specific efforts to gain a better understanding of CCG's role in the alleged conduct, Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint is not due to repeated failures to cure previously identified deficiencies. Under the circumstances in the case, Judge Curiel finds that the filing of the motion and the proposed amended complaint incorporating jurisdictional allegations, is not the product of undue delay. Indeed, the Plaintiffs heeded the Court's instructions and Judge Crawford's deadlines to complete such discovery and file an amended pleading within the tight timelines set forth. Similarly, there is no indication that the motion for leave to amend was made in bad faith. Last, while this amended pleading would be the Plaintiffs' 4AC, the amended pleadings in the case have not been the result of the Plaintiffs' neglect or failure to make sufficient efforts to prosecute the case. Second, the party opposing the amendment has the burden of demonstrating the prejudice they expect to face because of the proposed amendment. CCG has made no representations that they will face undue prejudice if the Plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint. To be sure, allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint will require CCG to continue to participate in and litigate the case. However, CCG has the burden to demonstrate that they will be unduly prejudiced by amendment, and having failed to make any such claims of prejudice, Judge Curiel finds that this factor weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs. Finally, Judge Curiel holds that the inquiry at this stage is whether the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment is futile, not a sua sponte review of the pleading for whether it passes Rule 12(b)(2) or 12(b)(6) muster. He reiterates that Rule 15 provides a liberal amendment standard. From a review of the proposed 4AC, it appears the Plaintiffs have incorporated jurisdictional allegations in the 4AC that were developed through discovery. That "CCG will once again move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction," is not sufficient reason to find that amendment is futile. Accordingly, having found that the five factors under Rule 15(a) weigh in favor of granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, Judge Curiel grants the motion. The Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed 4AC, as it appears at ECF No. 211-2, as their 4AC. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint. He denies as moot ACUSA's motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/35kfywpm from Leagle.com. HI Q INC: Case Management & Pretrial Deadlines Extension Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY HOY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HI Q., Inc. d/b/a Heath IQ, Case No. 4:21-cv-04875-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly request an adjustment to the Case Management and Pretrial Order to extend the outstanding deadlines, specifically, the Parties request the following: Event Old New Deadline Deadline -- Case Management Conference Oct. 3, 2022 At the Court's preference -- Referred for Private May 17, 2022 Nov. 17, 2022 Mediation to be Completed by: -- Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: July 1, 2022 Jan. 13, 2023 -- Disclosure of Expert Reports: Opening: July 26, 2022 Feb. 2, 2023 Rebuttal: Aug. 26, 2022 March 2, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 22, 2022 March 23, 2023 A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HoHlbj at no extra charge.[CC] HIGHMARK BCBSD: Parties Must File Case Management Order by June 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALKER v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01975 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that the parties shall file a joint proposed case management order on or before June 21,2022. The Court said, "The parties should propose an appropriate discovery and motions schedule that takes into account the pending mediation and related considerations. The Court appreciates the parties' efforts to explore settlement and recognizes their interest in avoiding spending time and resources on discovery matters that may prove unnecessary in the event of a successful mediation; however, this case approximately 18 months old and is still in the discovery phase, with neither class certification nor summary judgment motions (if any) having even been filed yet." The nature of suit Other Statutory Actions. Highmark Health is a Medicaid managed care organization.[CC] HILTON RESORTS: Chavez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUAN MANUEL PARRA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION, HILTON RESERVATIONS WORLDWIDE, LLC, HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC, and HILTON MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01248249-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01133 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 minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements and maintain records, failure to pay timely wages upon termination, failure to pay for necessary expenses, and unlawful business practices. Hilton Resorts Corporation is a hospitality company headquartered in Orlando, Florida. Hilton Reservations Worldwide, LLC is a hospitality company headquartered in Virginia. Hilton Hotel Employer LLC is a hospitality company headquartered in Virginia. Hilton Management, LLC is a hospitality company headquartered in Virginia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cynthia L. Filla, Esq. Connie L. Chen, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, 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: Cynthia.Filla@jacksonlewis.com Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com HOOSIER CONTRACTORS: Denial of Summary Judgments in Gardner Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Hoosier Contractors, LLC, Appellant-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellee/Counterclaim Defendant v. Sean Gardner, Appellee-Defendant/Cross-Appellant/Counterclaimant, Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CT-1331 (Ind. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana issued an order affirming the trial court's: a. denial of Hoosier's motion for partial summary judgment; b. denial of Gardner's motion for partial summary judgment; c. order addressing notice of class action. I. Introduction Hoosier filed a complaint against Sean Gardner alleging that he breached a contract that provided for Hoosier to make roof repairs on Gardner's home. Gardner filed a counterclaim, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated, alleging that Hoosier violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (the DCSA). Following the trial court's certification of the class, the parties filed several motions that have given rise to this appeal. Hoosier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the class lacked standing under the DCSA because they had not suffered actual damages, which the trial court denied. Gardner filed a motion to approve class action notice. In response, the trial court issued an order addressing notice of class action, which required that the notice advises potential class members that they could be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees under the DCSA if Hoosier prevailed at trial. Gardner also filed a motion for partial summary judgment contending that the Contract was null and void and that its liquidated damages provision was unenforceable, which the trial court denied. Hoosier and Gardner appeal these rulings. II. Background In December 2015, Gardner contacted Hoosier to request a roof inspection and obtain an estimate for roof repairs on his Indianapolis home. On Dec. 12, 2015, two Hoosier representatives visited Gardner's home. Prior to performing the inspection, Hoosier required Gardner to sign the Contract, a document entitled "Replacement Work Agreement." The Contract provided that if the owner's insurance company did not agree to pay for the proposed repairs, then the Contract "shall be null and void." It also contained a clause providing for liquidated damages in the event of breach of twenty percent of the total Contract price. Gardner signed the Contract, and Hoosier inspected his roof. Gardner submitted a claim for roof repairs to his homeowner's insurance provider, Cincinnati Insurance. On Jan. 6, 2016, Cincinnati issued a "Scope of Work" document, which was provided to Hoosier and Gardner, containing an itemized list of the work Hoosier would perform on Gardner's home and the estimated cost for each item. The total estimated cost of the work was $50,619.46. According to Joshua White, Hoosier's president, the Scope of Work indicated Cincinnati's approval of the repair work and the estimated cost. Gardner's deductible for his homeowner's insurance policy was $5,000. Mr. Gardner informed Hoosier that he believed that some of the items outlined in the Scope of Work were unnecessary, "asked for an adjustment of the insurance claim, and retained Spartan Claims, LLC to work with Cincinnati on the adjustment." For approximately two weeks during January, Cincinnati exchanged emails with Spartan "regarding supplements and adjustments to the Scope of Work originally approved by Cincinnati." On January 22, Cincinnati issued an updated Scope of Work, which "was substantially the same as the original claim, except for pricing and costs assigned to certain line items associated with replacement of the roof." The total estimated cost of the updated Scope of Work was $59,489.78. Hoosier paid Spartan's fee of $2,217.58. According to White, "This is money Gardner did not pay but received the benefit of as the supplement was paid by Cincinnati." At some point, Hoosier provided Gardner with a written notice of his right to cancel. This notice provided that if Gardner was notified by his insurance company that all or any part of the claim or the Contract was not a covered loss, he could "cancel the Contract by mailing or delivering a signed and dated copy of this cancellation notice." Although Hoosier attempted to schedule repairs "approved by Cincinnati Insurance, Gardner refused to agree to a scheduled time for completion of the repairs." "Hoosier never performed the agreed-upon repairs to Gardner's roof." "Gardner did not indicate to Hoosier any desire or intent to cancel or repudiate the Contract." Cincinnati paid Gardner for the claim he filed. Hoosier alleges that Cincinnati paid Gardner "nearly $60,000" for roof repairs, but the portion of the record that it cites does not specify the amount Gardner received from Cincinnati. The record shows that Gardner received two or three checks from Cincinnati for roof repairs but does not indicate the amount of money he actually received from Cincinnati. Gardner paid another company approximately $18,000 to repair his roof. In February 2016, Hoosier filed a breach of contract claim against Gardner. Gardner filed a counterclaim with a putative class action, which he later amended. In his amended counterclaim, Gardner alleged that the Contract violated numerous requirements under the Home Improvement Contractors Act (the HICA), Indiana Code Chapter 24-5-11. Further, Gardner alleged that the HICA violations were used by Hoosier as part of a "scheme, artifice, or device" intended to mislead Indiana residents into executing home improvement contracts, which constituted an "incurable deceptive act" actionable by a consumer under the DCSA, Indiana Code Chapter 24-5-0.5. In January 2017, Hoosier filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. In so doing, the trial court found as follows: Hoosier's contract appears to contain at least two prima facie violations of HICA's requirements. First, the Contract does not contain a price for the home improvement work to be performed as required by IC Section 24-5-11-10(a)(8). Second, the Contract does not include a description of the work to be performed as required by IC Section 24-5-11-10(a)(4). In July 2018, Gardner filed a motion to certify class action. In December 2018, the trial court granted the motion and certified the class as follows: "All persons who entered into a Home Improvement Contract with Hoosier Contractors, LLC from Feb. 12, 2014 until such time that Hoosier stopped utilizing said Contract(s) and began utilizing a Home Improvement Contract that was in compliance with the HICA." In February and March 2020, the parties filed the motions that led to this appeal. Hoosier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the class members lacked standing under the DCSA because they had not suffered actual damages. Gardner filed a motion to approve class action notice. He also filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the Contract was null and void and that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable. Following a hearing, in April 2021, the trial court issued separate orders denying each party's motion for partial summary judgment. It also issued an order addressing notice of class action, in which the court ruled that the notice was required to advise potential class members that they could be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees if Hoosier prevails at trial. The appeal and cross-appeal ensued. III. Discussion Hoosier appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment, and Gardner cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for partial summary judgment as well as the court's order addressing notice of class action. A. Section 1 - The class has standing to bring a claim for statutory damages under Indiana Code Section 24-5-0.5-4(a). Hoosier argues that because the class has not suffered actual damages, the trial court erred in concluding that the class has standing under Indiana Code Section 24-5-0.5-4(a) of the DCSA. This argument raises a question of statutory interpretation. "Statutory interpretation presents a pure question of law for which summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Hoosier maintains that because the class members have suffered no actual injury, they do not have standing to maintain an action. Gardner contends that a plain reading of the statute conveys standing on a person who relies on an uncured or incurable deceptive act to bring an action against the supplier and provides one of two possible remedies, either the actual damages suffered or a statutory damage remedy of $500, whichever is greater. The Court of Appeals agrees with Gardner's interpretation of Section 24-5-0.5-4(a). It concludes that Section 24-5-0.5-4(a) provides for a statutory damages award of $500. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the class has standing and in denying Hoosier's motion for partial summary judgment. B. Section 2 - Pursuant to Section 24-5-0.5-4(b), the trial court has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. Mr. Gardner challenges the court's requirement that the notice advise potential class members that if the class is unsuccessful at trial, they could be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees if they are awarded by the court. He contends that the trial court erred in applying Section 24-5-0.5-4(b). The Court of Appeals applies the unambiguous language of the statute and leaves it to the trial court's discretion to determine whether the circumstances of the case warrant an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party. That said, it would certainly be within the trial court's discretion to consider whether the Plaintiff's action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, but other factors could be consequential depending on the case. And it is too soon at this early stage of the proceedings to conclude that Gardner and the class members cannot be held liable for Hoosier's attorney fees should Hoosier prevail. Accordingly, he Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court did not err in requiring the notice of class action to advise potential class members that they may be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees. C. Section 3 - Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the Contract is null and void. Mr. Gardner asserts that he is entitled to summary judgment on Hoosier's breach of contract claim because the Contract is null and void. The parties do not dispute that if Cincinnati did not agree to pay for the proposed repair, the Contract would be null and void. However, the parties dispute whether Cincinnati agreed to pay for Hoosier's repairs. Gardner contends that the designated evidence shows that there was never a final agreement between Hoosier and Cincinnati on the price Cincinnati would pay for the repairs. Considering the evidence in support of Hoosier as the nonmovant and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, the Court of Appeals concludes that the possibility exists that after the email, Cincinnati and Spartan reached an agreement on the estimated cost reflected in the updated Scope of Work. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Contract is null and void. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's denial of Gardner's partial summary judgment motion on this issue. D. Section 4 - A determination as to whether the liquidated damages clause is enforceable is premature. Last, Gardner contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on his claim that the Contract's liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty. The Contract provided for liquidated damages of twenty percent of the total Contract price if the homeowner breached any obligation under the Contract. "While liquidated damages clauses are ordinarily enforceable, contractual provisions that constitute penalties are not." In this stage of the proceedings, the Court of Appeals holds that there are numerous unresolved issues as to whether the Contract violates the HICA, whether such violations constitute an incurable deceptive act under the DCSA, whether the Contract is null and void because Cincinnati failed to agree to the requested repairs, and whether Gardner breached the Contract. These issues make a determination regarding the liquidation clause premature. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's denial of summary judgment on this issue. IV. Decision The Court of Appeals affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/msenjm8n from Leagle.com. William N. Riley -- wriley@rileycate.com -- Russell B. Cate -- rcate@rileycate.com -- Sundeep Singh -- ssingh@rileycate.com -- RileyCate, LLC, in Fishers, Indiana, Attorneys for the Appellant. Paul L. Jefferson -- PJefferson@McNeelyLaw.com -- Scott A. Milkey -- SMilkey@McNeelyLaw.com -- Bradley J. Buchheit -- BBuchheit@McNeelyLaw.com -- McNeely Law, LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the Appellee. HUDSON'S BAY: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY DATA SECURITY INCIDENT CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-8472 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement; and (ii) grants in part and denies in part their motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. I. Background The Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and separately move for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Judge Castel's Opinion sets forth the Court's reasons for granting final approval to the class action settlement and granting a reduced award of attorneys' fees. He separately enters a Final Approval Order and Judgment that conforms with the conclusions set forth therein. The Plaintiffs bring numerous state law claims directed to a breach of payment-card information belonging to customers who made purchases at the brick-and-mortar retail locations of Lord & Taylor, Saks and Saks OFF 5TH stores between May 1, 2017, and April 1, 2018. The Defendants are Hudson's Bay Company ULC, Saks Inc., Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Saks & Co. LLC and Lord & Taylor LLC. A Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint consolidated the claims of plaintiffs who originally commenced three separate consumer class actions directed to the defendants' data breach. Before consolidation, three putative consumer class actions brought claims directed to the data breach: Beekman v. Lord & Taylor, LLC, 19 Civ. 4199 (PKC), which was originally filed in the District of Delaware; Sacklow, et al. v. Saks Inc., 19 Civ. 4186 (PKC), which was originally filed in the Middle District of Tennessee; and Rudolph v. Saks & Co. LLC, 18 Civ. 8472 (PKC), which was originally filed in the Central District of California. The Rudolph action was transferred to this District following a joint stipulation of the parties, and the Beekman and Sacklow actions were transferred after defendants successfully moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Court consolidated the three cases and administratively closed the Beekman and Sacklow cases. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint brings common law claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and "breach of confidence," as well as statutory claims under consumer-protection and data-privacy laws of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Nevada and Georgia. The parties reached an agreement in principle, to settle the case after a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was fully briefed but before it was decided. The Plaintiffs assert that a syndicate called "JokerStash" or "Fin7" accessed cardholder information, and then sold it on the so-called dark web. They assert that the breach caused them to spend time monitoring their accounts, safeguarding account information, and, for some plaintiffs, resolving fraudulent charges and withdrawals. Subject matter jurisdiction is premised on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on May 27, 2021. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval but modified the proposed procedures for objecting to the settlement. The settlement provides for a $30 payment to any "Tier 1" claimant who submits proof of a payment transaction during the period of the breach and confirms that he or she spent some amount of time monitoring account information after the breach. A "Tier 2" claimant will be reimbursed for documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the breach, such as costs and expenses related to identity theft or fraud, late fees, and unauthorized charges and withdrawals, in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per claimant. Unlike a common fund settlement, this settlement is structured with aggregate caps in the amounts of a $2 million payment to class members, $1.4 million in attorneys' fees and expenses, $250,000 for the costs of claims administration, and $15,000 total for service awards to the Individual Plaintiffs. As will be seen, the claims sought by the class members are far below the aggregate cap of payments allocated to class members. The deadline for class members to submit claims has passed, and the total amount to be paid to the class is $278,483.81 -- less than 14% of the $2 million "Aggregate Cap." The Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees nevertheless treats the settlement as something akin to a common fund with an overall value of $3,665,000, and seeks a percentage-based fees award of 36.7% from that amount, totaling $1,346,799.40. There is, in fact, no common fund, as that term is commonly understood in class action litigation. Plaintiffs do not seek a lodestar-based award and have not submitted billing records or other documentation that details the work of counsel on this case. No class members have opted out of the class and no objections have been made to the settlement. Judge Castel conducted a fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2022, which was continued to March 1, 2022. Among other things, he inquired about the adequacy of notice to the class, the details of the claims-submission process and the number of claims submitted by the class members. The fairness hearing confirmed, among other things, that the unclaimed portions of the "Aggregate Cap" were not and would never be paid by Hudson's Bay, explored the means used to provide notice to the class members as compared to other alternatives, and the manner in which claims could be submitted. Judge Castel reserved decision on final approval and the fees application. II. Discussion A. Motion for Final Settlement Approval Having reviewed the factors set forth by Rule 23(e)(2) and the additional factors set forth in the Second Circuit's Grinnell decision, Judge Castel concludes that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. The settlement will therefore be finally approved, as set forth in a separate Order. Among other things, Judge Castel finds that (i) the adequacy of class representation on the part of the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Plaintiffs weighs in favor of the proposed settlement; (ii) the settlement was negotiated at arm's length; (iii) the plan of allocation compensates members of the class equitably relative to each other; (iv) the size of settlement in the range of possible recovery; and (v) the class received the best notice that was practicable under the circumstances, mindful of the practical problems presented in this case in contacting cardholders directly. B. Motion for Attorneys' Fees The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $1,346,799.40 in attorneys' fees and $53,200.60 for the reimbursement of expenses, for a total award of $1.4 million. They state that the combined lodestar of their fees is $3,161,788.36, based on 4,666.03 hours of attorney and professional time, and that the application reflects a negative lodestar multiplier of 0.44. In support of the application, the Plaintiffs have submitted attorney declarations from the fourteen law firms that have participated in the case. No matter which method is chosen, district courts should continue to be guided by the traditional criteria, known as the Goldberger factors, in determining a reasonable common fund fee, including: (1) the time and labor expended by counsel; (2) the magnitude and complexities of the litigation; (3) the risk of the litigation; (4) the quality of representation; (5) the requested fee in relation to the settlement; and (6) public policy considerations." "A district court can avoid a 'windfall' by adjusting 'the percentage awarded in order to come up with a fee it deems reasonable in light of the Goldberger factors.'" Having reviewed the Goldberger factors and considered the structure of the parties' settlement, Judge Castel applies a one-third reduction to the Plaintiffs' requested fees award of $1,346,799.40, and award fees in the total amount of $897,866.26. Among other things, he finds that (i) the unpaid portions of the "Aggregate Cap" did not inure to the benefit of the class; (ii) the hourly rates of the attorneys and legal support staff are reasonable; (iii) the risks of litigation weigh in favor of an award of an attorneys' fees award; (iv) the quality of representation weighs in favor of an award of attorneys' fees; (v) the requested fee's relation to the settlement weighs against the size of the fees request; (vi) public policy weighs in favor of an attorneys' fees award; and (vii) there have been no objections to the settlement and no requests to opt out of the class. The out-of-pocket expenses are summarized in the attorney affidavits submitted by the 14 Plaintiff firms. They include routine expenses such as the mediator fee, expert fees, travel, meals, filing fees, legal research, photocopying and service of process expenses. Judge Castel finds that expenses are reasonable and the application for their reimbursement will be granted. C. The Plaintiffs' Application for Service Awards The Plaintiffs seek a service award of $1,000 to each of the 15 Individual Plaintiffs. Each Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that describes his or her participation in the litigation, as well as time spent personally responding to the data breach. Judge Castel finds that the Plaintiffs do not identify any special risks or burdens that warrant a service award. Therefore, to the extent that the Plaintiffs' declarations seek a service award for time spent monitoring their accounts, resolving fraudulent withdrawals and charges, or any out-of-pocket expenses connected to the breach, their application is denied. The Plaintiffs also have not identified risks associated with their roles as plaintiffs in the case, or, for example, travel expenses, lost wages, lost opportunities or lost vacation time that they incurred as a result of their work on behalf of the class. So, they have not demonstrated that a service award is warranted, and their application for a service award will be denied. III. Conclusion For the reasons he explained, Judge Castel grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement. He grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $897,866.26, and their application for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses in the amount of $53,200.60. He denies the Plaintiffs' application for service awards. The Plaintiffs are directed to file a revised Proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment that conforms to the Opinion. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate motions 183 and 185. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cxheypr from Leagle.com. IBM CORP: Adams and Movants to Confer on Appointment of Lead Roles ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issues an Order regarding the appointment of the Lead Plaintiff(s) and the Lead Counsel in the case, JUNE E. ADAMS IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED 7/21/14 FBO EDWARD ROBERT ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, VIRGINIA M. ROMETTY, MARTIN J. SCHROETER, JAMES J. KAVANAUGH, and ARVIND KRISHNA, Defendants, Case No. 22 CV 2831 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.). Before the Court are motions filed by each of the following Movants on June 6, 2022, to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff(s) and to approve each Movant's selection of counsel as the lead counsel in the putative securities class action: (i) the June E. Adams Irrevocable Trust Dated 7/21/14 FBO Edward Robert Adams; (ii) Michael Churton; (iii) the Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds; (iv) Bruce Scotland, Sarah Scotland, Rebecca Scotland, Priscilla Scotland, and Jessica Ploeger; and (v) the City of Hallendale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust. In the interest of efficient case management, Judge Briccetti orders the Movants to (i) meet and confer in good faith about whether the Movants can agree on the appointment of one or more of the Movants as Lead Plaintiff(s) and (ii) submit a single joint letter of no more than three pages by June 22, 2022, informing the Court whether each Movant intends to pursue their motion, as well as whether the Movants consent to the appointment of one or more of them as the Lead Plaintiff(s). If the Movants do not consent to the appointment of one or more of them as the Lead Plaintiff(s), in the joint letter, they will propose a briefing schedule for the filing of any responses to the pending motions. No replies will be permitted without leave of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8jz3nb from Leagle.com INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cyiark Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEJONE CYIARK, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03906 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cyiark was employed by the Defendant as staff. INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE, INC. provides hospitality and food services. The Company offers hospitality management, lodging, travel hospitality, sports facilities management, gaming, and racetrack operating services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com INMAR INC: Seeks to Stay Holmes' Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. INMAR, INC., a/k/a INMAR INTELLIGENCE, INMAR BRAND SOLUTIONS, INC. and W.J. DEUTSCH SPIRITS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to stay class certification. Contemporaneously with the filing of its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Suit as Class Action. The Court's consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification would be premature at this time in light of threshold issues that Inmar intends to raise in a motion to dismiss, such as whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Inmar in Illinois to hear this matter and whether Holmes has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because of these threshold but significant issues, this Court should stay ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until Inmar's motion to dismiss has been resolved. This result is permitted by Rule 23, promotes judicial economy, prevents prejudice to Inmar, and will not prejudice Holmes, the Defendant said. Inmar develops technology and data analytics services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MQPFC7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jason M. Wenker, Esq. Elizabeth L. Winters, Esq. Christin J. Jones, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 607-7300 Facsimile: (336) 734-2652 E-mail: jwenker@kilpatricktownsend.com bwinters@kilpatricktownsend.com cjones@kilpatricktownsend.com - and - John P. Heil, Jr., Esq. Bryan J. Vayr, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, P.C. 300 Hamilton Boulevard P.O. Box 6199 Peoria, IL 61601 Telephone: (309) 676-0400 Facsimile: (309) 676-3374 E-mail: JHeil@heylroyster.com BVayr@helroyster.com INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Bhambhani Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D., et al., v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00355-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order: 1. granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment; 2. denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave; and 3. dismissing the third amended complaint. In sum, the undisputed material facts, in this case, show that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and state law claims in this case. The Plaintiffs also have not shown that good cause exists to warrant further amendment of the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs, Dr. Ritu Bhambhani and Dr. Sudhir Rao, bring this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals alleging civil violations of RICO; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation by concealment or non-disclosure; and civil conspiracy claims against the defendants The Defendants have moved for summary judgment in their favor with regards to plaintiffs' claims, upon the ground that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. The Plaintiffs also seek leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Innovative Health is a developer of medical devices. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NX2YC7 at no extra charge.[CC] INSTANT BRANDS: Faces Havens Suit Over Pressure Cooker Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE HAVENS and ELSIE WILKERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTANT BRANDS, INC., f/k/a DOUBLE INSIGHT INC., d/b/a INSTANT POT(R) COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02909 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the common law of warranty and unjust enrichment, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the California and Florida consumer protection statutes by selling defective Instant Pot(R) Electric pressure cooker products. According to the complaint, the product has a dangerously defective lid-locking assembly, allowing the lid to open while the contents of the cooker are under pressure during normal and expected use, so that its super-heated contents erupt from the cooker, in violation of UL Standard for Safety for Pressure Cookers, UL 136, scalding consumers with second- and third-degree burns. Instant Brands has been aware of this dangerous defect since at least the year 2016, if not earlier, but fraudulently concealed it, failed to disclose it, and continued to sell products that had the defective lid-locking assembly, says the suit. Instant Brands, Inc. is a Canadian company and brand selling a range of kitchen appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 120 N. LaSalle Street, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: SMM@cliffordlaw.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - George E. McLaughlin, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 1890 Gaylord St. Denver, IL 80206 Telephone: (720) 420-9800 E-mail: gem@mcllf.com INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Knight Sues Over Unfair Pension Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Knight, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International Business Machines Corporation, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Personal Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-04592 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022) is a civil enforcement action brought under Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, concerning Defendants' alleged violations of ERISA's actuarial equivalence, anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity requirements with respect to an IBM Personal Pension Plan. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are vested participants in the IBM Plan, which denies them their full ERISA-protected pension benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class members receive pension benefits in the form of a joint and survivor annuity -- a benefit that pays an annuity both to the participant for his life and for the life of the participant's surviving spouse. In determining the amount of Plaintiff's and Class members' joint and survivor annuities, however, Defendants employed actuarial assumptions over 40 years out of date. That means Plaintiff and Class members receive less than the "actuarial equivalent" of their vested accrued benefit, contrary to ERISA, alleges the suit. As a result, these Participants and their beneficiaries receive significantly less than the actuarial equivalent of their single life annuity, directly contrary to ERISA's requirements, the suit adds. International Business Machines Corporation is world-wide technology company that specializes in software, technological infrastructure, and consulting. It is headquartered in Armonk, New York and operates throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Laura Older, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com lolder@cohenmilstein.com - and - Peter K. Stris, Esq. Rachana A. Pathak, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. John Stokes, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St. Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 ISTOGROUP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benoit Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISTOGROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01321 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Benoit was employed by the Defendant as driver. ISTOGROUP INC. operates a freight transportation company operating in Tampa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com aketelsen@wfclaw.com JAMES LEBLANC: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended in Humphrey ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY v. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233 (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Scott D. Johnson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to file class certification motion. The Scheduling Order in this case is modified as follows: -- the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Conditional Class Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to Prospective Class Members is July 1, 2022; -- Opposition thereto is due by August 1, 2022; and -- a Reply by Plaintiffs is due by August 16, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] JIGSAW HEALTH: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jigsaw Health, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Jigsaw Health, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04738 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jigsaw Health -- https://www.jigsawhealth.com/ -- has been developing science-based dietary supplements since 2005.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com JUUL LABS: Blaine School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------- BLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03370 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Blaine School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 765 H. Street in Blaine, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mead School Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03362 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Mead School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2323 East Farwell Road in Mead, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, East Valley Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EAST VALLEY (SPOKANE) SCHOOL DISTRICT #361 SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03368 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. East Valley (Spokane) School District #361 School is a unified school district with its offices located at 3830 North Sullivan Road in Spokane Valley, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Crandon Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CRANDON, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03360 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. School District of Crandon is a unified school district with its offices located at 9750 US-8 in Crandon, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hugo Public Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HUGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03358 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Hugo Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 208 North 2nd Street in Hugo, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Bethel School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03361 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Bethel School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 516 176th Street East in Spanaway, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Manistee Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic -------------------------------------------------------------- MANISTEE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03353 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Manistee Area Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 550 Maple Street in Manistee, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Oakfield-Alabama Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- OAKFIELD-ALABAMA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03352 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Oakfield-Alabama Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 7001 Lewiston Road in Oakfield, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Frenchtown School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRENCHTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03359 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Frenchtown School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 17620 Frenchtown Frontage Road in Frenchtown, Montana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Claiborne Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIBORNE COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03345 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Claiborne County Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 1403 Tazewell Road in Tazewell, Tennessee. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Mount Baker Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------- MOUNT BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03369 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Mount Baker School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 4956 Deming Road in Deming, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Oak Harbor Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------- OAK HARBOR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 201, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03354 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Oak Harbor School District No. 201 is a unified school district with its offices located at 350 South Oak Harbor Street in Oak Harbor, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Walla Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WALLA WALLA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03356 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Walla Walla Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 346 South Park Street in Walla Walla, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Steubenville City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEUBENVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03349 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Steubenville City School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 611 North 4th Street in Steubenville, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Toutle Lake Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOUTLE LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03355 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Toutle Lake School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 5050 Spirit Lake Highway in Toutle, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KOMATSU MINING: Bid to Dismiss Curtis' Amended Complaint Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TREVOR CURTIS, Plaintiff v. KOMATSU U.S. PENSION PLAN, KOMATSU PENSION AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1611-bhl (E.D. Wis.), Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. I. Background Mr. Curtis worked for Komatsu Mining Corp. for 45 years. On the day he retired -- July 19, 2019 -- he received a "Retirement Kit" in the mail from the Komatsu Pension and Investment Committee. The materials included information about a certain "Additional Benefit" related to his pension plan. A week later, Curtis received another Retirement Kit with the same Additional Benefit language. After receiving these Retirement Kits, Curtis contacted the Pension Committee and requested the Additional Benefit described in them. Soon thereafter a Komatsu benefits supervisor told Curtis that the Pension Committee had sent him the Additional Benefit information inadvertently and that the benefit did not pertain to his plan. When Curtis challenged this explanation and insisted on receiving the Additional Benefit, the Pension Committee denied his request and then rejected his appeal from that denial. In Curtis' calculations, the Additional Benefit language indicates he is owed an additional $280,347 under his pension plan. With his administrative remedies exhausted, Curtis filed a complaint, and an amended complaint, in the Court, claiming that the Komatsu U.S. Pension Plan had unlawfully denied him the benefit guaranteed in the kits he received. Curtis alternatively claims that the Pension Committee breached its fiduciary duty to a class of similarly situated individuals who were participants and beneficiaries of the pension plan by telling them they were not entitled to receive the benefit. The Defendants have moved to dismiss. II. Analysis Curtis' first claim for relief, against the Pension Plan, is for unlawful denial of benefits under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). He argues that the Additional Benefit language in the Retirement Kits represents the terms of his pension plan and that the denial of this benefit is therefore unlawful. In response, the Defendants argue that the Additional Benefit language was sent to Curtis errantly and did not constitute a part of the pension plan. They point out that the Plan Document itself "restates the Plan 'in its entirety,'" makes no mention of the Additional Benefit, and requires a "resolution of the Company's Board of Directors or the Plan Sponsor Committee" to be amended. A mistakenly included paragraph in ministerial summary documents, the Defendants insist, cannot be construed as a resolution amending the Plan Document. Mr. Curtis relies upon a "Descriptions of Payment Options" (DOPO) in the Retirement Kits. He highlights that this document is neither a summary plan description, nor an election form. In fact, the kits contain other documents labeled as "election forms," and the DOPO is not so labeled. He also points out that the DOPO refers to the Additional Benefit as being "under the Plan" and contends that this phrase distinguishes the document from summary plan descriptions and election forms. Judge Ludwig agrees that the DOPO is a separate document in the Retirement Kit, distinct from other materials, including election forms, "information-only" forms, and forms that appear to summarize elements of Curtis' pension plan. That the DOPO is distinct from the summary plan documents and election forms does not alter the principle that it is the plain terms of a pension plan that govern the benefits a retiree receives. The Plan Document does not reference the Additional Benefit Curtis seeks. Moreover, it provides that its terms can be amended only by formal resolution. Because Curtis does not allege that the Retirement Kits included or were based on resolutions that amend the plan, his denial-of-benefits claim must be dismissed. Mr. Curtis' second claim, against the Pension Committee, is a class-action breach-of-duty-to-inform claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). He argues that the Pension Committee misrepresented the plan's terms to Curtis by telling him he was not owed the Additional Benefit. Because he concludes that the Additional Benefit language does not constitute part of Curtis' pension plan, Judge Ludwig holds that the Pension Committee's communications to Curtis that he was not owed the Additional Benefit were accurate and therefore not misrepresentations in violation of the fiduciary duty to inform. Curtis insists that Supervisor Kevin Tschudy's specific explanation about why the pension plan did not include the Additional Benefit could be nothing other than a lie. But even assuming that Tschudy's explanation was flawed, his message to Curtis was undisputedly true -- the Additional Benefit was not part of the pension plan. At most, Curtis alleges Tschudy misstated the reason why the Additional Benefit was not part of the plan. But he identifies no harm resulting from this purportedly deceptive explanation. This claim must, therefore, also be dismissed. III. Conclusion For the reasons, Judge Ludwig grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyns3ct from Leagle.com. LANGIS LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langis LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Langis LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04739 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Langis LLC is an e-commerce service in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada and is part of the Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com LLOYD AUSTIN: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE 1, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00364-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order granting the unopposed motion to amend the complaint. Not later than June 24, 2022, the plaintiffs may amend the complaint to add the claims of Staff Psychologist. The motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied as moot. The motion for injunctive relief, the motion to certify a class, and the motion to proceed anonymously are denied without prejudice to the renewal of each motion on behalf of the plaintiffs named in the forthcoming third amended complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ob1hRa at no extra charge.[CC] MAJOR LEAGUE: Casey's Sues Over Alleged Anticompetitive Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Casey's Distributing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04832 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other online retailers of MLB Licensed Products who have been denied the opportunity to sell on third-party online marketplaces (TPOMs) due to the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, 2, and 3, and seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants to restore competition on TPOMs to the status quo. The MLB Licensed Products industry operates much like other licensed merchandise industries. Trademark owners (e.g., individual sports teams) license their marks to licensees who make products that are then sold to distributors, who then re-sell the products to retailers, who in turn re-sell them directly to consumers. But instead of competing independently, the teams that comprise the MLB have formed a cartel to jointly organize the licensing of their marks (as a single group) through Defendant MLBP. Unlike real competitors in an open and competitive marketplace, the Clubs' collusive marketing agreements disincentivize competition between the Clubs. The MLB's operation as a business cartel is key to understanding the collusive agreements at issue in this complaint, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Casey's is a Nebraska corporation with its principal address at 8921 J Street, No. 300, Omaha, Nebraska. Casey's product line primarily focuses on licensed hardgoods, which includes automotive accessories, banners, blankets, collectibles, displays, full-size authentic and mini helmets, flags, home and office products, toys, drinkware, and items for dining, the kitchen, and tailgating. Casey's also sells licensed apparel. Casey's purchased MLB licensed hardgoods directly from WinCraft, which was acquired by Fanatics on or around December 2020, and other licensees during the Class Period. Every year, consumers spend billions of dollars on MLB Licensed Products. Many of these transactions take place through online channels, especially TPOMs such as Amazon.com, Inc. In fact, TPOMs, including Amazon's TPOM, serve as a sole source of income for many small merchants that sell MLB Licensed Products to consumers. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, doing business as Major League Baseball, is an unincorporated association composed of the thirty Major League baseball clubs. MLB has unified operation and common control over the Franchises. All do business as MLB. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc., an entity in which each of the 30 current MLB Clubs owns an equal interest. The Defendants include MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.; KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CLUB LLC d/b/a KANSAS CITY ROYALS; MIAMI MARLINS, L.P. d/b/a MIAMI MARLINS; SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS BASEBALL CLUB LLC d/b/a SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS; BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P. d/b/a BOSTON RED SOX; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP d/b/a TORONTO BLUE JAYS; CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD. d/b/a CHICAGO WHITE SOX; CLEVELAND GUARDIANS BASEBALL COMPANY LLC d/b/a CLEVELAND GUARDIANS; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC d/b/a HOUSTON ASTROS; ANGELS BASEBALL LP d/b/a LOS ANGELES ANGELS OF ANAHEIM; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a OAKLAND ATHLETICS; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP d/b/a SEATTLE MARINERS; THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC d/b/a CINCINNATI REDS; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC d/b/a ST. LOUIS CARDINALS; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD. d/b/a COLORADO ROCKIES; PADRES L.P., and the SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P. d/b/a SAN DIEGO PADRES; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC d/b/a MINNESOTA TWINS; WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC d/b/a WASHINGTON NATIONALS; DETROIT TIGERS, INC. d/b/a DETROIT TIGERS; and LOS ANGELES DODGERS, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com - and - William E. Hoese, Esq. Craig W. Hillwig, Esq. Zahra R. Dean, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com chillwig@kohnswift.com zdean@kohnswift.com MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Hinton Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHIRLEY HINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV13813, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03936 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 for all hours worked, failure to provide off-duty meal breaks and failure to pay missed meal break premiums, failure to pay all wages within a timely manner, failure to provide complete wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. Management & Training Corporation is a contractor that manages private prisons and United States Job Corps centers, headquartered in Centerville, Utah. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 650-0404 Facsimile: (713) 650-0405 E-mail: Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com - and – Martin P. 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: Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com MARATHON REFINING: Wood Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD ET. AL., v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting in part, denying in part, and deferring in part motion for class certification. Finding the requirements of Rule 23 met, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the Operators Class is granted. The Plaintiffs' requests to appoint former operators Warren Kostenuk and Anthony Alfaro as class representatives is also granted. The Court also grants plaintiffs' motion to appoint Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld as Class Counsel. The Court Defers on the certification of the Operator Subclass, the modified Maintenance Worker Class and Subclass, and the appointment of former maintenance worker Aaron Dietrich as a class representative. Certification of these classes will be granted if numerosity is met, the Court says. Appointment of Dietrich will be granted upon certification of the Maintenance Worker Class and a showing that Dietrich is a member of the class as redefined, i.e. that he was not a chemical plant maintenance worker. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer on this issue and to submit a joint stipulation to this Court within 21 days of the issuance of this Order either stipulating to certification of these classes or detailing the reasons the parties cannot do so. The Court reminds the parties that there is a Judicial Emergency and that the Court's limited resources should not be used on unnecessary motion practice, the Court adds. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N1yvSo at no extra charge.[CC] MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Suit Seeks Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses: -- Class "All individuals employed by Defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Marketsource in a retail capacity at any time from January 3, 2013, through the date of class certification;" -- Regular Rate Subclass "All Class Members employed from January 3, 2013, to April 1, 2015, who earned a non-discretionary bonus and/or incentive payment during the same week they earned overtime wages. -- Off the Clock Subclass "All Class Members required to attend off the clock meetings and/or conference calls from January 3, 2013, to the date of certification. -- Rest Break and Rest Break Premium Subclass "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of three and one-half hours or more during the Class Period;" -- Meal Break Subclass "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of more than five hours during the Class Period;" -- Business Expense Subclass "All Class Members, excluding Field Service Representatives, employed by Defendants from January 3, 2014, though the date of class certification;" -- Final Pay Subclass "All Class Members who ended their employment with the Defendants at any time from January 3, 2014, through the date of class certification;" and -- Wage Statement Subclass "All Class Members who received at least one wage statement from January 3, 2016, though the date of class certification." 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Jennifer Brum and Michael Camero as representatives for the proposed Class and Subclasses; and 3. Appointing Capstone Law APC and Lebe Law as Class Counsel for the proposed Class and Subclasses. MarketSource designs and delivers marketing and sales-team solutions for companies of all sizes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O1qnmc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Mark Ozzello, Esq. John E. Stobart, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com John.Stobart@capstonelawyers.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW 777 S. Alameda Street, Floor 2 Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Rodney Mesriani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Agrees With Maadanian on Pleading and Due Dates ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, approved the parties' stipulation and order regarding amended pleading and related dates. The Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Class Action Complaint, which will supersede the original class action complaint. As such, the and Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA"), through their respective attorneys, stipulate that (1) MBUSA need not respond to the original class action complaint; (2) the Plaintiff will file the Amended Class Action Complaint no later than June 27, 2022; (3) MBUSA's answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended Class Action Complaint will be due 30 days following the filing of the Amended Class Action Complaint; (4) if MBUSA chooses to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, then the Plaintiff's opposition will be due 30 days following the filing of the motion; and (5) MBUSA's Reply will be due 14 days following the filing of the opposition. Judge Lasnik finds good cause exists for the proposed dates set forth as the Plaintiffs will be filing an Amended Class Action Complaint and because the counsel for MBUSA has only recently been retained and requires time to become knowledgeable about the case. The Plaintiff's counsel has consented to the filing of this document. Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause having been found to exist, Judge Lasnik so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6bxxmw from Leagle.com. EMERY REDDY, PLLC, Timothy W. Emery -- Tim@emeryreddy.com -- WSBA No. 34078 Patrick B. Reddy -- Patrick@emeryreddy.com -- WSBA No. 42092, in Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for Plaintiff Seyyed Javad Maandanian. DLA PIPER LLP (US) Anthony Todaro -- anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- WSBA No. 30391, in Seattle, Washington, Attorney for Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. META PLATFORMS: District Court Consolidates Sloan and Gervat Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidates the cases, MARK SLOAN, Plaintiff v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants. HUGHES GERVAT, Plaintiff v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 22-cv-00903-JST, 22-cv-01206-JST (N.D. Cal.). Judge Tigar has reviewed the parties' and Proposed Intervenors' joint response to the order to show cause as to why these cases should not be consolidated and stayed. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Proposed Intervenors all agree that these cases should be consolidated. They also all agree that the action should be stayed at least until after the Court has resolved any challenges to the complaint in the related securities class action, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-08812-JST. The only dispute is whether the Court should grant the Plaintiffs' request, on which the Defendants take no position but which the Proposed Intervenors oppose, to appoint co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs now. Judge Tigar declines to do so. He finds that the Plaintiffs have identified no reason to appoint lead counsel while the case is stayed. Nor is he persuaded, as the Plaintiffs argue, that the Proposed Intervenors have waived any objections to the Plaintiffs' appointment request. The Plaintiffs filed their request on March 7, 2022. The Proposed Intervenors filed their motion to intervene and stay on March 8, 2022 -- the following day. Although the Proposed Intervenors' motion did not specifically ask the Court to defer ruling on the Plaintiffs' appointment request, that was implicit in their motion to stay. With good cause appearing, Judge Tigar consolidates these cases for all purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The consolidated action will be maintained under Case No. 4:22-cv-00903 and captioned as "In re Meta Platforms, Inc., Derivative Litigation." The Clerk will close Case No. 4:22-cv-01206. The consolidated action is stayed until the Court has resolved any challenges to the complaint in the related securities class action, Case No. 21-cv-08812, or the defendants in that case indicate that they will not challenge the pleadings. This is without prejudice to the parties' seeking to extend the stay, either by motion or stipulation. Any subsequently filed, removed, or transferred shareholder derivative action that alleges the same or substantially similar claims as the consolidated action will be consolidated for all purposes. Any party objecting to such consolidation must file a motion requesting relief from the Order within 14 days after the action is consolidated. Judge Tigar denies as moot the Proposed Intervenors' motions to intervene and stay. If they continue to seek intervention after the stay has been lifted, they will meet and confer with the parties to attempt to reach agreement. If they cannot reach agreement, they may file a new motion to intervene. The parties' stipulation regarding the deadline to respond to the complaint and appointing co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs is denied without prejudice. The parties may renew these requests once the stay has been lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fevxu4d from Leagle.com. MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hay Creek Royalties, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Mewbourne Oil Company, Case No. e 5:20-cv-01199-F (W.D. Okla.), the Class Representative Hay Creek ask the Court to enter an order for final approval of the: 1. Proposed class action Settlement; 2. Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and 3. Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation. The Court should grant final approval of the Settlement. The procedure for reviewing a proposed class action settlement is a well-established two-step process. First, the Court conducts a preliminary analysis to determine if the settlement should be preliminarily approved such that the class should be notified of the pendency of a pro-posed settlement, Hay Creek contends. The Court preliminarily certified the following Settlement Class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from Defendant (or Defendant's designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells during the Claim Period; or (2) whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government entity by Defendant during the Claim Period; and (3) whose payments or whose unclaimed property did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma. Mewbourne Oil is a privately owned oil and gas producers in America. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aXjDaj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - David R. Gleason, Esq. Charles V. Knutter, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C. 211 N. Robinson One Leadership Square, St. 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235–3357 E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com cknutter@moricoli.com MGM RESORTS: Lucas, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONI D. LUCAS, JEREMY GOARD, CHRISTOPHER MANLONGAT and SHAWNDREA STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE INTERNAL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Class: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between September 22, 2014 through the date of judgment." In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) Count I against the Defendants for their failure to prudently manage the Plan’s assets because during the Class Period, "[t]hey did not make decisions regarding the Plan's investment lineup based solely on the merits of each investment and what was in the best interest of Plan participants" and "[i]nstead, the Prudence Defendants selected and retained investment options in the Plan despite the high cost 8 of the funds in relation to other comparable investments." The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Therefore, the only remedy available to participants in the Plan is Plan-wide relief, including the restoration of losses. Thus, the proposed Class meets the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(1), given the nature of this action and the relief sought on behalf of the Class. MGM is the 401(k) Savings Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary of the Plan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xrbfr4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4003 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com gabriellek@capozziadler.com MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Petrea Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIE PETREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDNIGHT EXPRESS AUTO RECOVERY, INC., STACEY WILLETTE, and TONY WILLETTE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00415 (E.D. Va., June 2, 2022) asserts a claim for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, arising from work that Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, performed as employees of Defendants; and a claim that MEAR misclassified its employees as independent contractors in violation of the Virginia Misclassification Law. The Plaintiff worked for MEAR as a member of its office staff in a position called "Case Worker" from approximately March 2010 to June 2018 and July 2019 through April 15, 2022. The Plaintiff also individually asserts a claim that MEAR terminated her for reporting to a supervisor that MEAR was violating the law by misclassifying her as an independent contractor when she was really an employee, and/or for refusing to sign a document incorrectly calling her an independent contractor when she was really an employee under the law, in violation of the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law, the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision, and the Virginia public policy underlying numerous statutes. Midnight Express Auto Recovery, Inc. is a repossession company. It specializes in repossessing vehicles and equipment for its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Coady, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL COADY, et al., v. NATIONWIDE MOTOR SALES CORP., et al., Case No. 1: 20-cv-1142 SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for conditional certification of the following collective: "All individuals who were previously employed and compensated in part or entirely on a commissioned basis by Defendants from May 4, 2017 to the present." Nationwide Motor Sales Corp. operates as a car dealer. The Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, as well as provides financing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 16, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HzhKwo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Markovitz, Esq. Michal Shinnar, Esq. JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com mshinnar@jgllaw.com - and - Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK LLC 788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 204 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 842-2070 Facsimile: (732) 879-0213 E-mail: jonr@jonrudlaw.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Smith ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01217-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: 1. All class discovery and discovery July 1, 2022 regarding the damage claims of plaintiff, Brendan Smith, to be completed by: 2. Expert reports regarding the July 15, 2022 damages claims of plaintiff, Brendan Smith, if necessary, to be exchanged by: 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class August 1, 2022 Certification to be filed by: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies, commonly shortened to Nationwide, is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services companies based in Columbus, OH. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b1zx3p at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Bid for Class Status Nixed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAKIRA LESLIE and SHAMILL BURGOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; KENNETH COREY, Chief of Department for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; KEECHANT SEWELL, Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official capacity; JAMES ESSIG, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; EMANUEL KATRANAKIS, Deputy Chief in the Forensic Investigations Division of the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; and DR. JASON GRAHAM, Acting Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:22-cv-02305-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order that the motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to its renewal (on the original papers if plaintiffs so choose) following the resolution of the proposed motion to dismiss. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that is among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xOZThU at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Cardew, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert. Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cardew et al v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06557-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order staying deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (currently set for June 28, 2022) pending the resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. This is the second request for an adjournment of the class certification motion deadline. The Plaintiffs believe that staying the class certification deadline is warranted, given that Plaintiffs recently filed a Motion to Compel discovery relevant to class certification. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xNtwjC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hallie Mitnick, Esq. Megan Welch, Esq. Andrew Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NY 114 Prospect Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 273-2283 E-mail: hmitnick@plsny.org mwelch@plsny.org astecker@plsny.org - and - Torie Atkinson, Esq. Chloe Holzman, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Ave, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 644-8644 E-mail: tatkinson@dralegal.org cholzman@dralegal.org NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Star Insurance Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. North Star Insurance Advisors, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00827-AJS (W.D. Pa., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. North Star Insurance Advisors -- https://northstaria.com/ -- is a life insurance agency in Wentzville, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. P.O. Box 244 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Phone: (814) 777-5080 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com OAK PARK PLACE: Scheduling Order Entered in Ricker Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAUSIA RICKER, v. OAK PARK PLACE OF OAK CREEK LLC, and OAK PARK PLACE AL 1 HOLDING LLC, Case No. 22-cv-383-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange their July 20, 2022 Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by the end of the day on: -- Parties wishing to amend pleadings July 20, 2022 or join parties without leave of the court shall do so no later than the end of the day on: -- The plaintiff shall file a motion October 12, 2022 for conditional certification under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) no later than the end of the day on: -- Motions for final certification, April 26, 2023 class certification, and decertification shall be filed no later than the end of the day on: -- The parties shall complete all August 23, 2023 discovery no later than the end of the day on: -- A party wishing to file dispositive September 20, 2023 motions must do so by the end of the day on: -- The parties shall file a joint September 20, 2023 status report by: Oak Park Place is a Senior Living Community that provides both Assisted Living and Memory Care services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NWKYrw at no extra charge.[CC] PAYSAFE PAYMENT: Order Adopting Schedule Entered in Bitmouni Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMAL BITMOUNI v. PAYSAFE PAYMENT PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00641-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order, except as modified, adopting the discovery schedule listed in the joint case management conference statement as follows: 1. The further case management conference set for June 17, 2022 at 2:00 PM by Zoom Webinar is continued to August 5, 2022 at 2:00 PM by Zoom Webinar. 2. Updated case management statement due July 29, 2022. 3. The non-expert discovery deadline of July 28, 2022 is extended to October 28, 2022. 4. The expert disclosure deadline of July 28, 2022, is extended to October 28, 2022. 5. The expert rebuttal deadline of August 12, 2022 is extended to November 10, 2022. 6. The expert discovery deadline of September 16, 2022 is extended to December 16, 2022. 7. The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on January 6, 2023. The response/opposition to the Motion shall be filed by January 20, 2023. Any reply brief to the Motion shall be filed by January 27, 2023. The Motion will be heard on February 24, 2023 at 27 9:30 AM by Zoom Webinar. 8. The deadline to file dispositive motions and Daubert shall be 30 days after the Court's ruling on class certification. Paysafe is a leading global provider of specialized payment solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NTuNLO at no extra charge.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Irving Labor Suit Moved From E.D. Mo. to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROBNEY IRVING-MILLENTREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00440, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04784-RA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all hours worked in violation of Missouri's Minimum Wage and Maximum Hour Law and Missouri common law. The Plaintiff has worked for PepsiCo as a non-exempt worker since February 2007. PepsiCo, Inc. is a food, snack, and beverage corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing on Class Certification Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL HAYDEN, et al., v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00367-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order vacating hearing on class certification and further deadlines due to settlement as follows: -- The discovery hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, June 14, 2022, before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman is vacated; -- The hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification currently scheduled for Thursday, July 7, 2022, is vacated; -- All further deadlines set forth in the Court's scheduling order dated February 22, 2022, are suspended; and -- A motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement shall be filed not later than August 8, 2022. On March 16, 2022, the parties to the above-captioned matter filed a Joint Case Management Statement, in which they stated that "the Parties have now engaged in substantive discovery and are in the process of briefing Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification" and "now believe that it is appropriate to consider scheduling initial mediation discussion and are meeting and conferring accordingly." On February 17, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. On April 25, 2022, the Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class certification. On June 2, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its reply brief in support of class certification; and a hearing is scheduled on the pending motion for class certification before this Court on Thursday, July 7, at 9:30 a.m. On May 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants engaged in private mediation conducted at JAMS by neutral Robert A. Meyer, Esq. Portola is an American clinical stage biotechnology company that researches, develops, and commercializes drugs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39phh3x at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association and Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Nicole Lavallee, Esq. Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq. Jeffrey V. Rocha, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com dbarenbaum@bermantabacco.com jrocha@bermantabacco.com The Attorneys for Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Director and Officer Defendants, are: Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. Audra J. Soloway, Esq. Joshua Hill, Esq. Shane D. Avidan, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP - and - Mark R. Conrad, Esq. CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP The Attorneys for Underwriter Defendants, are: James J. Beha II, Esq. Anna Erickson White, Esq. David J. Wiener, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP RAPID FINANCIAL: Updated Scheduling Order in Watkins Suit Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTOPHER WATKINS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM CARDS; AXIOM BANK N.A.; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a ACCESS SECURE RELEASE; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00509-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada approves the Parties' Updated Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. I. Introduction The Parties met and conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 26(f) and Local Rule ("LR") 26-1 on June 7, 2022. Because the Plaintiff added an additional Defendant, Keefe Commissary, since the previous discovery plan and scheduling order was entered by the Court, and because the case was filed as a class action, the Parties request additional time for discovery purposes and a special scheduling review is requested pursuant to LR 26-1(a). The Parties submit their Updated Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order ("DPSO"). II. Background The case was originally filed in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada In and For Carson City, on July 31, 2020, bearing Case Number 20 TRT 00089 1B against Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank. The Plaintiff's complaint is based on his allegation that upon release from a Nevada state and/or federal prison, inmates who have a balance in their inmate trust account (whether from earned wages in prison labor camps, deposited money, or money confiscated upon incarceration) are forced to take the Defendants' electronic release pay card that charges the Plaintiff a fee to access the funds on the card. The Plaintiff alleges five causes of action for violations of: (1) Electronic Funds Transfers Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693; (2) Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Acct, NRS Section 598.092 (8 and 14) and NRS 508,0923(3); (3) Conversion; (4) Unjust Enrichment; and (5) Unconstitutional Taking. The Defendants removed to the Court on Sept. 8, 2020. Other than service of the complaint and summons on the Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank Defendants on Aug. 18, 2020, there were no other proceedings while the case was pending in the First Judicial District Court. After removal, the Plaintiff and Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank each filed certificates of interested parties on Sept. 8, 2020. The Court granted the Parties stipulation to extend the time for Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank to respond to the Complaint on Sept. 17, 2020. Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank filed a Statement Concerning Removal pursuant to the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Minute Order on Sept. 17, 2021. On Sept. 29, 2020, Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration which was fully briefed as of Oct. 30, 2020. On Feb. 10, 2021, the Parties requested a stay of discovery pending the Court's decision on the Defendants' Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the Court The Court's Order required the Plaintiff and Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank to file a discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of the Court's decision on the motion to compel. On Aug. 30, 2021, the Court entered its Order denying the Defendants' Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank Motion in its entirety. The Plaintiff and Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank timely submitted a Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order for the Court's review, which was approved on Sept. 13, 2021. On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff provided his initial disclosures to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank, and on Oct. 1, 2021, Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank provided their initial disclosure to the Plaintiff. On Oct. 1, 2021, Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank answered the Plaintiff's original complaint. On Jan. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff propounded his first sets of requests for production and interrogatories to each Defendant, Defendant Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank. Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank timely responded on Feb. 22, 2022. The Plaintiff disclosed his expert on damages to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank on March, 13, 2022; however, no expert report was included because no data had been disclosed upon which the Plaintiff's damages expert could opine. The Plaintiff provided his first supplemental disclosures to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank on April 22, 2022, along with Plaintiff's timely responses to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank first sets of requests for production and interrogatories. On April 1, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff and Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank stipulation to file the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC" and operative complaint). The Plaintiff filed his FAC adding Defendant Keefe Commissary on April 2, 2022. The Court granted the Plaintiff and Defendant Keefe Commissary extension of time for Defendant Keefe to respond. Defendant Keefe timely answered the Plaintiff's FAC and filed its certification of interested parties on May 18, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his motion for FRCP 23 class certification on May 10, 2022. The Parties propose the updated following deadlines for Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank, as well as Defendant Keefe Commissary to opposed by July 19, 2022, and the Plaintiff's reply in support by Aug. 2, 2022. There are no other pending motions before the Court at this time. III. Proposed Discovery Schedule Pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1(d), a telephonic meet and confer was held on June 7, 2022, and was attended by Leah L. Jones on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Robert McCoy and George Verschelden on behalf of Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank and by Sheri Thome and Russell Ponessa on behalf of Defendant Keefe Commissary. The Parties submit the following DPSO: A. Subjects upon which Discovery may be needed: The Parties agree that discovery may be needed on all matters set forth in the operative Complaint and any defenses raised by the Defendants thereto. They agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent protracted discovery disputes regarding discovery. They affirm their requirement to meet and confer pursuant to LR 26-6 prior to involving the Court in any discovery disputes. B. Limitations on Discovery: Because the case is filed as a Nevada state class action, the Parties request additional time for discovery purposes and thus a special scheduling review is requested pursuant to LR 26-1(a). C. Discovery Disputes: The Parties agree that before moving for an order relating to discovery, they must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules of the District. D. Electronically Stored Information: All Parties will make efforts to preserve ESI in their possession, custody or control where the ESI may include information relevant to the litigation. The Parties may confer prior to production to discuss formatting of ESI. If the receiving party has an objection to the formatting of ESI received, that party must confer with the producing party prior to filing any motion or otherwise contacting the Court. E. Privileged Materials: The Parties agree that a Party who produces a document protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product doctrine or any other recognized privilege without intending to waive the claim of privilege associated with such document may promptly, meaning within 30 days after the producing party actually discovers that such inadvertent disclosure occurred, amend its discovery response and notify the other Party that such document was inadvertently produced and should have been withheld. Once the producing Party provides such notice to the requesting Party, the requesting Party must promptly, meaning within five business days, return the specified document(s) and any copies thereof. By complying with this obligation, the requesting Party does not waive any right to challenge the assertion of privilege and request an order of the Court denying such privilege. F. Initial Disclosures: On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff provided his initial disclosures to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank, and on Oct. 1, 2021, Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank provided their initial disclosure to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided his initial disclosures to Defendant Keefe on June 6, 2022. Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank provided their initial and supplemental disclosures to Defendant Keefe Commissary on June 7, 2022. Defendant Keefe Commissary will provide its initial disclosures by June 30, 2022. G. Discovery Cut-Off Date: In compliance with LR 26-2 the Parties request additional time to complete discovery given the potential for motion practice, the nature of issues involved in the case, because the Plaintiff has asserted the case as a class action, and because Defendant Keefe Commissary was recently added to the case. The Parties propose an additional 123-day discovery period in addition to the July 11, 2022 deadline set forth in ECF No. 26. Thus, the due date for the proposed discovery plan to complete all discovery related to the scope of any class and/or subclasses, merits, and liability: Nov. 11, 2022. H. Amending the Pleadings: The last day to file motions to amend pleadings will be no later than 91 days prior to the discovery cut-off date, or Aug. 12, 2022. I. Motion for Class Certification: Plaintiff filed his motion for FRCP 23 class certification on May 10, 2022. Defendants Rapid Financial and Axiom Bank will oppose or no later than July 19, 2022. The Plaintiff's reply in support will be due 14 days thereafter or Aug. 9, 2022. J. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: The Plaintiff disclosed his expert witness on March 14, 2022, to Defendants Rapid Financial and Axion Bank. The Plaintiff disclosed his expert witness to Defendant Keefe Commissary on June 6, 2022. The Parties propose, pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) identifying rebuttal experts will be made 91 days prior to the discovery cut-off date, or Aug. 12, 2022. K. Dispositive Motions: Because the viability and scope of any class action has not been decided by the Court, it is the Parties' position that it would be premature to establish a dispositive motion deadline at this time. The Parties propose that they confer and make a good faith effort to agree and submit an updated proposed scheduling order which includes deadlines regarding any additional interim status reports, dispositive motions, and trial 14 days after the Court rules on any FRCP 23 class certification. An updated scheduling order regarding relevant deadlines should be entered after FRCP class certification has been decided. L. Pre-Trial Order: Because the viability and scope of any class action has not been decided by the Court, it is the Parties' position that it would be premature to establish a pre-trial order deadline. The Parties propose that they confer and make a good faith effort to agree and submit an updated proposed scheduling order which includes deadlines regarding any additional interim status reports, dispositive motions, and trial 14 days after the Court rules on any motion directly related to FRCP 23 class certification. An updated scheduling order regarding relevant deadlines should be entered after FRCP class certification has been decided. M. FRCP 26(a)(3) Disclosures: The Parties agree to include their disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(3) and any objections thereto in the joint pretrial order. N. Alternative Dispute Resolution: In compliance with LR 26-1(b)(7) the Parties certify that they have met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution process including mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation. Given that the action is brought as a class action, the Parties reserve the right to further confer about the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution processes at the close discovery. O. Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: In compliance with LR 26-1(b)(8), the Parties have considered consenting to the assigned Magistrate Judge, as well as the Short Trial Program. P. Use of Electronic Evidence in Jury Trial: A jury trial has not been demanded and in compliance with LR 26-1(b)(9) but the Parties anticipate that they will be presenting evidence in an electronic format, in the event the case is not resolved prior to trial. The Parties stipulate and agree that any electronic evidence will be reduced to searchable.pdf documents or other reasonably usable formats, to the extent practicable, in compliance with the Court's requirements for the electronic evidence. Q. Extension of Scheduled Deadlines: The Parties agree to comply with LR 26-4. All motions or stipulations to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan will be received by the Court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. R. Final Pretrial Conference: The Final Pretrial Conference will be held two weeks prior to the scheduled Trial Date. S. Trial Date: The Parties believe setting a proposed trial date and length would be premature at this time. IV. Disposition Judge Denney approves the Parties DPSO. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/575nhpn5 from Leagle.com. Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua R. Hendrickson -- joshh@thiermanbuck.com -- THIERMAN BUCK, LLP, in Reno, Nevada, Christian Gabroy -- christian@gabroy.com -- Kaine Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com -- GABROY LAW OFFICES, in Henderson, Nevada, Lance J. Hendron, Esq. -- lance@hlg.vegas -- HENDRON LAW GROUP, LLC, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. KAEMPFER CROWELL, Robert McCoy -- rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com -- Ryan M. Lower -- rlower@kcnvlaw.com -- Sihomara L. Graves -- sgraves@kcnvlaw.com -- in Las Vegas, Nevada, STINSON LLP, George Verschelden (admitted pro hac vice), in Kansas City, Missouri, Attorneys for Defendants Rapid Financial d/b/a Access Freedom Cards; Axiom Bank. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP, Sheri M. Thome -- sheri.thome@wilsonelser.com -- Taylor A. Buono -- aylor.buono@wilsonelser.com -- in Las Vegas, Nevada, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, Russell S. Ponessa (admitted pro hac vice), in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorneys for Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC. ROBERT HAMMER: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL ZELAYA, et al., v. ROBERT HAMMER, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00062-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Individual Defendants move the Court to: – extend the deadline for their response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by one day from June 20, 2022, to June 21, 2022; and -- extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply brief in support of their motion by one day from June 27, 2022, to June 28, 2022. Under the Court's December 21, 2021 Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due on or before May 2, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved to extend their deadline to file a class certification motion from May 2, 2022, to May 31, 2022. In their motion, the Plaintiffs proposed that "any opposition filed by the Defendants would be due three weeks after Plaintiffs' brief and any reply would be filed a week after the opposition, consistent with the timing in the current Scheduling Order." The parties conferred regarding Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time and, on Thursday, April 21, 2022, reached an agreement regarding deadlines for class certification filings. The agreement was memorialized in an email among counsel for the parties, which confirmed that the Defendants consented to extending Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification to May 31, 2022. The parties also agreed that the deadline for Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion would be extended to June 21, 2022 (21 days after the filing of the motion), and that the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion would be extended to June 28, 2022 (seven days after the filing of the response). On the following Monday, April 25, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion and setting May 31, 2022, as the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court's order also set June 20, 2022, as the deadline for Defendants' response and June 27, 2022, as the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply. The Plaintiffs timely filed their Motion for Class Certification on May 31, 2022. The parties respectfully request that the Court extend each of the remaining class certification briefing deadlines by one day to give Defendants the benefit of three full weeks to respond to Plaintiffs' lengthy and detailed class certification motion, and to give Plaintiffs the benefit of one full week in which to prepare a reply. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b0IUQW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Donald J. Aho, Esq. Zachary H. Greene, Esq. Bradford G. Harvey, Esq. Russ F. Swafford, Esq. MILLER & MARTIN PLLC 1200 Volunteer Building 832 Georgia Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone (423) 756-6600 E-mail: don.aho@millermartin.com zac.greene@millermartin.com brad.harvey@millermartin.com - and - Lynsey M. Barron, Esq. Alexander C. Vey, Esq. 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone (404) 962-6100 E-mail: lynsey.barron@millermartin.com alex.vey@millermartin.com SANTANDER BANK: Settlement in Tepper Suit Gets Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL TEPPER and REBECCA RUFO-TEPPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 7:20-cv-00501-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an amended order preliminarily approving class action settlement, granting preliminary certification of settlement class, and providing for notice as follows: -- Preliminary Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only: The Court preliminarily certifies a class (the "Settlement Class") for settlement purposes only, of: "all persons, including individuals and entities, who are holding, or have held, during the Class Period, a mortgage loan secured by real property in the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Utah or Wisconsin who would have been due interest on an escrow account maintained by Santander under the law of the state in which the property was located but were not paid such interest." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant; Defendant's officers and directors at all relevant times, as well as members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest. "Class Period" means the period beginning, for Settlement Class Members whose mortgage loan is secured by real property in Iowa or Rhode Island, on January 1, 2010; in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin, on January 1, 2014; and in Maryland, on January 1, 2017; and ending on the date this Order is entered by the Court. -- Class Representative and Class Counsel The Court appoints Janine L. Pollack and Michael Liskow of Calcaterra Pollack LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Daniel Tepper and Rebecca Rufo-Tepper are hereby appointed as Class Representatives. -- Preliminary Settlement Approval The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement set forth in the Agreement as being within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, based on the Parties' information provided to the Court and subject to final consideration at the Final Approval Hearing provided for below. Accordingly, and because the Court is likely to be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the Settlement proposal, the Court has adequate grounds to direct Notice to the Settlement Class. -- Final Approval Hearing The Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas on October 27, 2022 at 10:00 am. -- The Court sets the following schedule for the Final Approval Hearing and the actions which must precede it: a. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement no later than [42 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] September 15, 2022. b. The Plaintiffs shall file their Fee & Expense Motion and Motion for Service Award no later than [42 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] September 15, 2022. c. Settlement Class Members must file any objections to the Settlement, the Fee & Expense Motion and/or the Motion for Service Award by no later than [28 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] September 29, 2022 d. Settlement Class Members must exclude themselves, or opt-out, from the Settlement by no later than [28 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] September 29, 2022. e. Settlement Class Members who intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing must file a Notice of Intention to Appear at the Final Approval Hearing by no later than [5 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] October 23, 2022. f. Class Counsel and Defendant shall have the right to respond to any objection no later than [7 calendar days prior to the Final Approval] October 20, 2022. g. The Final Approval Hearing will take place on October 27, 2022 at 10:00 am. Santander Bank, formerly Sovereign Bank, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. It is based in Boston and its principal market is the northeastern United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zDGwK1 at no extra charge.[CC] SIMONE SUBAL GALLERY: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simone Subal Gallery LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Simone Subal Gallery LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04753 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Simone Subal Gallery -- https://simonesubal.com/ -- is an art gallery in New York City.[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 SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2022, that its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors are facing a consolidated class action captioned "In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation." Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020. In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court granted. Slack and the other defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. Oral argument was heard in May 2021. On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Slack filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on November 3, 2021, which was denied on May 2, 2022. The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the consolidated action was captioned "In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," Lead Case No. 19CIV05370. Salesforce, Inc. provides customer relationship management technology. In July 2021, it acquired Slack Technologies, Inc. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------- Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2022, that beginning September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo. The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Salesforce, Inc. provides customer relationship management technology. In July 2021, it acquired Slack Technologies, Inc. SOLA SALON: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sola Salon Studios, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sola Salon Studios, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04737 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sola Salon Studios -- https://www.solasalonstudios.com/ -- operates as a franchisor and operation of salon suites. The Company offers hair and skin related services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SPINNAKER RESORTS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Dudas -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DUDAS, v. SPINNAKER RESORTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06008-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- The parties have agreed to make June 30, 2022 initial disclosures by: -- Motions or stipulations addressing October 1, 2022. the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class April 28, 2023. certification must be filed by -- Primary expert reports must be Jan. 31, 2023 produced by: -- Rebuttal expert reports must be March 31, 2023 produced by: -- All discovery shall be completed by April 14, 2023 -- Case dispositive motions relating April 28, 2023 to individualized issues and claims to be filed by: -- Settlement: The Plaintiff shall make a April 14, 2023 settlement demand: The Defendants will respond: April 28, 2023 Spinnaker Resorts is a travel & tourism company specializing in luxury real estate and property management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MOveWqat no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Colorado Court Dismisses RTP Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RTP ROOFING CO., Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-cv-1816-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Replead. I. Introduction Plaintiff RTP Roofing Co. ("RTP" or "Plaintiff") sues Defendant State Farm for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes Sections 10-3-1115 and -1116, unjust enrichment, and a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's insurance-payment practices violate Sections 10-3-1115 and -1116. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, and to permanently enjoin Defendant from continuing the insurance-payment practices that it claims violate Sections 10-3-1115 and -1116. Currently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Replead. II. Background Plaintiff RTP is a roofing contractor based in Colorado. Typically, when a homeowner requires roof repairs covered by insurance, the contractor works directly with the insurance company once the homeowner has made a claim. This process includes the preparation of materials and labor cost estimates by both the roofing contractor and the insurance company. When a structure must be re-roofed due to damage, existing roofing materials must first be removed; RTP asserts this "tear-off" work "requires the same skill and care as installing roofing materials" and must, therefore, be performed by the same skilled (and more expensive) laborers it employs to install roofing materials. Defendant State Farm is an insurance company based in Illinois. It provides homeowners' insurance in Colorado and, according to RTP, controls the largest share of the Colorado market. According to RTP, over the last 10 years, it has frequently performed roofing work for State Farm insureds. RTP notes three specific instances of roofing work it performed in Sedalia, Highlands Ranch, and Parker, Colorado, for homeowners insured by State Farm. For each instance raised by RTP, both RTP and State Farm estimated the labor costs for the removal of existing roofing materials using the lower, demolition rate. For its part, RTP acknowledges its labor estimates used the demolition rate but explains that it uses this rate when performing work for homeowners insured by State Farm only because State Farm has consistently refused to pay more than the skilled-labor rate for tear-off work. RTP does not assert that the tear-off work it performed for State Farm insureds was uncompensated or that its costs to perform tear-off work exceed what it charged insureds using the demolition rate prescribed by State Farm. Nor does RTP assert or provide facts suggesting that other insurance companies or their customers pay the higher skilled-labor rate for roofing tear-off work. According to RTP, State Farm's refusal to pay the appropriate skilled-labor rate has caused other roofing contractors in Colorado to change their labor estimation practices and accept less money for roof tear-off work than they otherwise would. As such, it seeks certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of "All persons or entities who performed roofing work for a State Farm insured in connection with a claim for roof damage covered under a State Farm insurance policy and were denied payment of the roofing labor rate for removal of roofing materials by State Farm in the period of July 2, 2019, to the present." The policy states, in relevant part: State Farm will pay the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, subject to the following: (1) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property. III. Analysis A. Motion to Dismiss a. Nature of the Jurisdictional Attack Judge Martinez first considers whether the Defendant brings a facial or factual attack for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Both parties consider the Defendant's jurisdictional attack as factual, and Judge Martinez agrees. The Defendant attacks the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint and supports the Motion to Dismiss with extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, Judge Martinez considers facts outside the pleadings without converting the Motion to Dismiss into one for summary judgment. In addition, he does not "presume the truthfulness of the Plaintiff's factual allegations." b. Standing For a court to have subject-matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have standing. At its "irreducible constitutional minimum," standing has three elements. First, a plaintiff must suffer an "injury in fact" that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, the injury must be traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by the relief requested. Standing is determined as of the time the action is brought. In the case, the Plaintiff seeks both retrospective (monetary) and prospective (injunctive) relief. 1. Standing to Seek Damages In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has no standing to seek damages because it has not been harmed and its claims should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Giving due consideration to the parties' competing contentions and arguments on this issue, Judge Martinez concludes that the Plaintiff lacks standing because it has failed to demonstrate that it has suffered an injury in fact. As the Defendant correctly points out, its policy expressly limits any payment based on "actual cash value" to the "cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property," and the Plaintiff fails to present evidence that either its costs to perform removal work or the amount charged to its customers exceeded its own estimates. 2. Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief The Defendant does not address the Plaintiff's standing to seek prospective relief in its Motion to Dismiss; however, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to allege it is suffering a continuing injury or faces a real and immediate threat of being injured in the future. For its part, the Plaintiff argues that it alleges in its First Amended Complaint that the Defendant's wrongful conduct is "continuous and ongoing" and seeks an injunction to prevent future harm. The Plaintiff does not allege that it charges customers for roof tear-off work -- or intends to charge them in the future -- based on the skilled-labor rate it claims is appropriate. Nor does it allege ever having done so. Therefore, much like the alleged past damages, Judge Martinez holds that the Plaintiff's alleged future damages are merely hypothetical. He says, the Plaintiff's speculation that in the future it may be able to charge a higher rate for roof tear-off work and be paid by the Defendant at that higher rate is beyond the bounds of the Court's jurisdiction. T 3. Class Action Allegations Finally, the fact that the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit as a putative class action does not save its claims. It is well-established that a named plaintiff of a class must individually and independently have standing, and that such a putative class representative cannot rely on potential class members' injuries to satisfy his burden. Based on the foregoing, Judge Martinez finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing because it has not demonstrated it suffered an injury in fact. Accordingly, its lawsuit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. B. Plaintiff's Motion to Replead In its Motion to Replead, the Plaintiff requests that "to the extent the Court believes State Farm's motion is meritorious and finds re-pleading necessary and/or appropriate, RTP respectfully requests the opportunity to further amend its pleading." It argues that, under Rule 15(a) and related precedent, a district court's refusal to permit amendment "is generally only justified in the case of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or a dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments the court has previously allowed, or futility." It further points out that the Court has never previously noted a deficiency in its pleading or granted a motion to amend. The Defendant responds that the Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the Local Rules and Revised Practice Standards of the Court and, in doing so, has also failed to provide the Court and the Defendant with adequate notice of the basis of its proposed amendment. The Court notes that Plaintiff's failure to familiarize itself with its Revised Practice Standards resulted in its first Motion to Replead being stricken. The Plaintiff subsequently refiled its motion after complying with its obligation to meet and confer with defense counsel. The Defendant also argues that the fact that the Plaintiff has already amended its complaint once weighs against allowing further amendment, because the Plaintiff has already had two opportunities to file an adequate pleading. Judge Martinez finds that the Court has not previously noted a deficiency and allowed amendment. Where the Defendant has a point, however, is the Plaintiff's failure follow the Local Rules and Revised Practice Standards of the Court. Despite the clear directives in Local Rule 15.1(b) and Revised Practice Standard III.E, the Plaintiff failed to attach as exhibits either a clean copy of their proposed amended pleading or a redline comparing that proposed amended pleading to the currently operative complaint. Without the Plaintiff's proposed amendments, it is difficult for either the Court or the Defendant to assess whether further amendment would be futile. Still, Judge Martinez cannot definitively conclude that there are no set of facts the Plaintiff might be able to plausibly allege to cure the significant jurisdictional problem identified by the Defendant. Therefore, and solely in the interest of justice, he overlooks the Plaintiff's second failure to comply with Local Rules and its Revised Practice Standards and permits the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinez grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Martinez also grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. The Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint by no later than June 21, 2022. The Defendant will file its Answer or other responsive pleading by no later than July 8, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/49nmz8h9 from Leagle.com. STATE FARM: Seeks June 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY PEDERSEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Lindsay; BETTY L. RADOVICH; WANDA WOODICK; and ROSALIE KIERNAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Nicholson; individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00029-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its two-week extension, up to and including June 30, 2022, to file its response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on May 19, 2022. Pursuant to Doc. 207, State Farm's response is due June 16, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply is due June 30, 2022. State Farm requests a two-week extension to finish preparing an appropriate response and allow adequate time for review, up to and including June 30, 2022. Accordingly, the Parties request a two-week extension for Plaintiffs' to file their reply in support of their Motion, up to and including July 14, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), undersigned counsel for State Farm has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding this motion, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension. State Farm Insurance is a large group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MRAAQB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dale R. Cockrell, Esq. MOORE, COCKRELL, GOICOECHEA & JOHNSON, P.C. 145 Commons Loop, Suite 200 P.O. Box 7370 Kalispell, MT 59904-0370 Telephone: (406) 751-6000 Facsimile: (406) 756-6522 E-mail: dcockrell@mcgalaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Moseley, Esq. Hannah S. McCalla, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-3800 Facsimile: (303) 839-3838 E-mail: jmoseley@spencerfane.com hmccalla@spencerfane.com SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Loses Bid for Writ of Prohibition in Snider Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, EX REL., SURNAIK HOLDINGS OF WV, LLC, Petitioner v. HONORABLE THOMAS A. BEDELL, sitting by assignment as Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County; and PAUL SNIDER, Respondents, Case No. 21-0610 (W. Va. App.), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denies the Petitioner's petition for a writ of prohibition. I. Introduction The Court notes that this is the second time the class action case, pursued under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, has come to the Court on a petition for relief under its original jurisdiction. In the Court's prior decision, it granted a writ of prohibition and dissolved the circuit court's former class certification order -- State ex rel. Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC v. Bedell, 244 W.Va. 248, 852 S.E.2d 748 (2020) ("Surnaik I"). The Petitioner again seeks a writ of prohibition to stop the circuit court's most recent order certifying the case for class action relief. II. Background In October of 2017, a week-long fire consumed a warehouse in Parkersburg, West Virginia, owned by the Petitioner, Surnaik. The warehouse tenant at the time was in the business of purchasing and recycling chemical waste and other byproducts from chemical manufacturers. The fire was massive, causing the county commission to declare it a disaster and the governor to declare a state of emergency. In just the first twelve hours, firefighters pumped six million gallons of water on the fire. Respondent Paul Snider is a resident of Parkersburg. He alleges that the fire generated poisonous smoke filled with particulate matter and gasses that blanketed much of Parkersburg and the surrounding area. The Respondent filed the instant action and, under Rule 23, sought to form a class action composed of all residents and businesses within an 8.5-mile radius of Surnaik's warehouse. The Respondent's complaint (and later amended complaint) alleged that Surnaik had allowed the warehouse's fire protection system to fall into a state of disrepair. He asserted causes of action for negligence and sought various forms of compensatory damages on behalf of himself and the putative class members including for diminution in the value of property, loss of use and enjoyment of property, lost profits of businesses, and personal injuries. After the parties conducted discovery, the Respondent filed a motion for class certification. He proposed defining the putative class as containing individuals who lived in certain geographic areas (called "isopleths") surrounding the burned warehouse. Those isopleths met two conditions: beginning with the start of the warehouse fire, (1) there were concentrations of fine particles 2.5 micrometers or less in size ("PM2.5") that had been emitted by the fire; and (2) the fine particles averaged three micrograms per cubic meter ("3 ug/m3") or more over any24r-hour period during the fire. Surnaik opposed the respondent's motion for class certification. In an order entered Sept. 12, 2019, the circuit court granted the Respondent's motion for class certification. The circuit court adopted respondent's definition of the class. Surnaik then petitioned the Court for a writ of prohibition to halt the circuit court's September 2019 class certification order. After hearing oral argument by the parties, the Court granted the writ of prohibition on Nov. 20, 2020. Overall, its opinion observed that "class certification determinations are not perfunctory" and that a "circuit court must give careful consideration" to whether a party seeking class certification has met the burdens imposed by Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. In Surnaik I, because of the circuit court's insufficient discussion of the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b), the Court granted the writ of prohibition. Accordingly, it vacated the circuit court's September 2019 order granting class certification. When the case returned to the circuit court, the Respondent renewed his bid to have the circuit court grant class certification to his case. The Defendant again opposed class certification. In an order signed June 15, 2021, the circuit court again granted class certification to the Respondent's case. Despite the circuit court's findings, on July 30, 2021, Petitioner Surnaik filed a second petition for a writ of prohibition with the Court. Surnaik's petition asserts it is challenging the circuit court's June 2021 certification order because it contains "the same flaws that plagued the first certification" order. The Court granted a rule to show cause to review the circuit court's order, and it allowed the parties oral argument. III. Discussion In its petition to the Court, Surnaik asserts six properly raised assignments of error. Most of these assignments were previously raised in Surnaik I. Surnaik's first, second, third, fifth, and sixth arguments are virtually identical to arguments made in Surnaik I. First, Surnaik "argues that the circuit court erred by certifying a class in which only 10% of the class is likely to have been injured, thereby failing to satisfy the predominance requirement of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)." Second and third, "Surnaik contends that mass accident and toxic tort matters, such as this one, are not appropriate for class adjudication," and that federal courts refuse to certify similar personal injury claims. Surnaik insists that the certified class is fatally deficient because the number of uninjured individuals vastly exceeds the injured and weeding out uninjured class members eviscerates any efficiencies gained through the class mechanism. Surnaik's fifth and sixth assignments mirror its third in Surnaik I, which was that a class cannot be certified "because the Respondent conceded he did not suffer any property damage, and the requirements of standing and typicality preclude him from representing a class seeking that relief." The Court rejects these five arguments because they misapprehend the circuit court's order. It finds no error in the circuit court's conclusion that Surnaik's breach of any applicable duties owed to the individuals in the class-defined areas presents at least one common question that predominates over other questions and that the question merits class action resolution. The Court likewise finds no error in the circuit court's determination that the Respondent, who was deprived of the enjoyment of his home by transient smoke without his property being physically damaged, is a typical and proper representative of the class. Accordingly, it rejects Surnaik's first, second, third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error. Surnaik's fourth assignment of error is identical to its fourth assignment of error in Surnaik I, that is, "Surnaik alleges that the circuit court erred by certifying a class whose members are not readily identifiable by reference to objective criteria." It argues that members must "be identified with sufficient specificity so that it is administratively feasible for the court to ascertain whether a particular individual is a member." Surnaik contends the circuit court's order lacked sufficient specificity to define the individuals within the class. The Court rejects this argument because the class is clearly defined by a geographical boundary. It is well-established that Rule 23 permits courts to certify classes defined by geography. The circuit court order narrowed the class to individuals within geographically defined isopleths of potential exposure. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in Surnaik's fourth assignment of error. IV. Conclusion After consideration of Surnaik's assignments of error, the Court finds no clear error as a matter of law in the circuit court's June 2021 class certification order. Hence, it cannot say the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, and it must, therefore, deny the requested writ of prohibition. Accordingly, writ is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y588jxu7 from Leagle.com. Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq., J. Zak Ritchie, Esq. -- zritchie@hfdrlaw.com -- Andrew C. Robey, Esq. -- arobey@hfdrlaw.com -- Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner. Alex McLaughlin, Esq., John H. Skaggs, Esq., Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent Snider. TALEN ENERGY: Non-Debtor Defendants Seek Leave to File Sur Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE M. DURNACK, et al., v. RET. PLAN COMM. OF TALEN ENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05975-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Non-Debtor Defendants request leave to file the Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules and Standing Order and Procedures on Civil Motion Practice. On May 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification. In their Reply, Plaintiffs raised entirely new arguments regarding, inter alia, their and the putative class members' alleged entitlement to benefits under the Talen Energy Retirement Plan (the Plan). Moreover, the Plaintiffs submitted approximately 80 pages of new "evidence" that they contend support their Motion for Class Certification. But a reply brief "is intended only to provide an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised in the response brief; it is not intended as a forum to raise new issues." And when a party introduces new arguments or evidence on reply, the non-moving party should be afforded an opportunity to respond if the Court intends to consider those arguments or evidence. Accordingly, Non-Debtor Defendants request leave to file the attached Sur-Reply to address Plaintiffs’ new arguments and evidence so that this Court may have a full record of the actual issues regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. It is entirely within this Court's discretion whether to grant permission for leave to file a sur-reply. Talen Energy is an independent power producer founded in 2015. It was formed when the competitive power generation business of PPL Corporation was spun off and immediately combined with competitive generation businesses owned by private equity firm Riverstone Holdings. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hq6R0a at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq. Brandon J. Brigham, Esq. Ashley E. Baxter, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com brandon.brigham@morganlewis.com ashley.baxter@morganlewis.com UNILEVER US: Taylor Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taylor v. Unilever US, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02803 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order denying as moot without prejudice motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Unilever manufactures personal care products.[CC] UPHOLD HQ: Sandoval Suit Referred to Magistrate for Pretrial Mgmt. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order regarding general pretrial management in the case, ADDISON SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs v. UPHOLD HQ INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-07579 (VSB) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.). The action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A). All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery, but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website. I. Background The putative class action was filed on Sept. 10, 2021, by four Plaintiffs who allege that Defendant Uphold, a "digital currency money platform," defrauded them and others, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349 and related laws, when it "actively, uniformly, and deceptively promoted an investment in a product called 'Uphold Earn,'" which it knew to be "a worthless product, or at minimum, one with undisclosed material risks," causing the Plaintiffs to lose their Earn investments "when the company behind 'Earn,'" known as "Cred, Inc.," went bankrupt following egregious mismanagement." Uphold has filed a motion to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims which is pending before the Hon. Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge. Uphold has also "reserved the right" to file counterclaims and affirmative defenses if and when it answers the Amended Complaint. Fact discovery is ongoing. II. The Parties' Discovery Dispute By joint letter dated June 3, 2022, the parties seek a ruling as to certain third-party subpoenas issued by Uphold to Bank of America, where plaintiff Lionel Ducote maintains an account, and to Wells Fargo Bank, where plaintiff Nicholas King maintains an account. Although the parties did not attach the subpoenas themselves to their letter, they agree that each subpoena seeks "all documents and communications" concerning "any accounts" maintained by the subject bank to or for the benefit of Ducote or King since July 1, 2020, "including, but not limited to, any and all" accounts, statements, or other documents "concerning unauthorized use or disputed transactions on any accounts." Defendant Uphold explains that a third plaintiff, Addison Sandoval, purchased cryptocurrency from Uphold -- using funds transferred from his bank account at Ally Bank -- and then lent that cryptocurrency to Cred. When Cred filed for bankruptcy protection, plaintiff Sandoval, "instead of seeking claims against Cred," filed numerous applications with Ally "asserting that his own ACH withdrawals from his Ally account to his Uphold account were 'unauthorized' at the time the transfers were made." Uphold states that it intends to file fraud-based counterclaims against Sandoval arising out of this conduct, id., and that the subpoenas now at issue -- addressed to Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank -- are intended to "discover whether Messrs. King and Ducote have engaged in similar conduct as their co-plaintiff, Mr. Sandoval." The Plaintiffs seek an order quashing or modifying the subpoenas. They argue that the information sought is not relevant to any claim or defense actually asserted in the present action. They further contend that even if certain banking transactions "with Uphold" are relevant, the subpoenas as written (which would require the banks to turn over all of Ducote's and King's banking records for the past two years) are impermissibly "broad and intrusive." Judge Moses agrees. He says, no fraud claims have been pleaded against King or Ducote. Nor does the Defendant suggest that it has any non-speculative basis, at present, for believing that either of these plaintiffs attempted to cancel or reverse transfers from their accounts to Uphold by claiming that they were "unauthorized." As to these two plaintiffs, therefore, the subpoenas appear to constitute a classic "fishing expedition" beyond the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The fact that there is a confidentiality stipulation in place among the parties to this action does not expand the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b)(1), which applies to non-party as well as party discovery. Consequently, the subpoenas addressed to Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank are quashed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and 45(d)(3). This ruling is without prejudice to the future service of narrowly-tailored subpoenas to the Plaintiffs' banks seeking relevant and proportional discovery. III. General Pretrial Management On a going-forward basis, Judge Moses cautioned the parties and the counsel that: 1. All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Future discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and Section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with Section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. 5. In accordance with Section 1(d) of Judge Moses' Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the attachments. Teleconferences are held on the Court's AT&T line. If a teleconference is scheduled, the parties are directed to call (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387 a few minutes before the scheduled time. Videoconferences are held using the Court's videoconferencing technology (Microsoft Teams) or (with the prior approval of the Court) such alternative videoconferencing technology as the parties agree upon and arrange. If the Court's technology is used, the Court will provide the link and further instructions in an email to the counsel closer to the date of the conference. In person conferences are held in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), all depositions in the action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. The Order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5), including the requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. For avoidance of doubt, a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) used to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3967485k from Leagle.com. USA QR: Liang Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- KAIYUN LIANG and XIAOHAO FANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA QR CULTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LLC d/b/a HUTAOLI MUSIC & BAR, WEI YOU, and "JANE" YOU, Case No. 1:22-cv-04841 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) is a putative collective and class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and any other cognizable cause of action established upon the facts alleged herein, arising from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked within the time limitations prescribed by the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages; (b) liquidated damages; (c) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (d) attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 664-1412 E-mail: arissmiller@rissmiller.com - and - Matthew L. Berman, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com VALUE SERVICE: Taveras Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tristan Taveras, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Value Service & Repair Corp., Value Service Corp., Yuval, Inc., Steven Bach, and Susan Bach, Case No. 1:22-cv-03416 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Taveras worked also as a general worker at the Defendants' used car business ("Yuval"). Taveras was employed as a non-managerial employee at Value Service from on or around January 2018 to through and including March 2020. Plaintiff Taveras was employed as a non-managerial employee at Yuval from on around February 2021 to through and including May 2022. The Defendants own, operate and/or control the repair service company (i.e., Value Service); and used car business (i.e., Yuval) where Plaintiff worked. The Individual Defendants possess operational control over the Corporate Defendants, possesses an ownership interest in the Corporate Defendants, and control significant functions of the Corporate Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com VENTURE HOME: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in James Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KURT JAMES, JULIE STEWART, and ZAKER AHMED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VENTURE HOME SOLAR, LLC, and VENTURE SOLAR COMMERCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1306 (CSH) (D. Conn.), Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an order: a. granting in part and denying as moot in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration; b. staying the action; and c. denying as moot the Defendants' alternative Motion to Dismiss the action. I. Background The lawsuit is a purported class action arising out of the quest for solar energy, a pursuit (together with wind energy) generated by the global perception of fossil fuels as a cause of climate change. The individual Plaintiffs own residential homes. The affiliated Defendants market and install electricity-producing solar panel systems on residential properties, and did so at the Plaintiffs' homes. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' solar panel systems did not and could not produce the substantial savings in their electricity usage bills that the Defendants had promised would be achieved. The Plaintiffs claim "compensatory, restitutionary, punitive, and treble damages." The individual Plaintiffs, residential home owners, sue on their own behalf, and also purport to sue on behalf of a Class of "all residential persons or commercial entities residing or located in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, who leased or purchased a solar panel system marketed by Defendants and who did not receive the offset on their electricity usage charges promised by the the Defendants." The theory of the Plaintiffs' case, spelled out in the First Claim of the Complaint, alleging violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 42-110a, et seq., is that Venture Home "falsely promised" them that "by installing and using a solar panel system marketed by the Defendants their electricity usage bills would be fully or substantially offset and they would pay little or no money for electricity usage to their incumbent electricity provider." The Plaintiffs "were induced to install and use the Defendants' solar panel systems because of the promise that their electricity usage bills would be fully or substantially offset and they would pay little or no money for electricity usage." They "have not received the offset in electricity usage costs as promised by the Defendants," and have "suffered substantial damages" in consequence. In addition to the First Claim under CUTPA, the Complaint also asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation (Second Claim) and for unjust enrichment (Third Claim). The Defendants now move to compel the Plaintiffs to submit their claims against them to arbitration, pursuant to one or another of the contracts between or involving the parties. One of the Plaintiffs, Kurt James, concedes his obligation to submit his claims to arbitration. The other two Plaintiffs, Julie Stewart and Zaker Ahmed, resist the Defendants' motion to compel them to do so. Judge Haight's Ruling resolves the contested aspects of the Defendants' motion. II. Discussion Further pertinent facts are found in a sworn declaration by Alex Yackery, a member of the Venture LLCs. A. The Contracts Involved According to Yackery, "Venture Home installs solar panel systems onto residential properties." "The power generated from the solar panel systems is then used to power the residence, thereby providing a clean energy source, and offsetting the property owner's energy bill from traditional energy services." At times, Venture Home "directly contracts with a residential client." On those occasions, "the client enters into a Solar Electric Installation Contract with Venture." At other times, "Venture Home also contracts with third-party solar companies to install solar panels onto the residences of the customers of these third-party companies." In the case at bar, Plaintiff Kurt James entered into the former type of arrangement on Jan. 29, 2020. He thus contracted directly with Venture Homes for the installation of a solar panel system at his residence. Plaintiffs Julie Stewart and Zaker Ahmed followed the second path, entering contracts with "third-party solar companies" with which Venture had contracted to install solar panels. On Jan. 21, 2020, Stewart entered into a contract with a company called Sunnova Energy Corp. for the installation of solar panels on her residence. Stewart's contract with Sunnova listed Venture Home as the "Subcontractor/Installer" and recited that "Venture Home Solar, LLC and Sunnova will install a 6.650-kW solar system on your home." The contract further specified that "Venture Home Solar, LLC will complete the design and engineering drawings for your system, and Sunnova will review the final design to ensure it meets our high quality standards." Plaintiff Zaker Ahmed entered into a contract with Sun Power Capital LLC on Nov. 10, 2017, for the installation of solar panels on his residence. That contract listed Venture as the "Dealer/Installer" of the solar panel system. Under these circumstances, Yackery declares that Venture had and "has no direct contractual relationship" with Plaintiff Julie Stewart or with Plaintiff Zaker Ahmed. B. The Arbitration Clauses Each of the three existing contracts contains a broadly stated arbitration clause. The arbitration clauses in the contracts are reproduced in full in the parties' submissions on the present motion. C. The Question Presented on the Motion The basic question presented by the Venture Defendants' motion is whether the Individual Plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate their claims against Venture that arise out of these three contracts. Certain Plaintiffs oppose that proposition, but only with respect to two of the three contracts involved. The dispute presented by the motion is whether the other two Plaintiffs -- Stewart and Ahmed -- should be compelled to arbitrate their claims against Venture. The case for these Plaintiffs is that since they contracted with non-parties (Sunnova and Sun Power, respectively), the arbitration clauses contained in those contracts have nothing to do with Stewart's and Ahmed's claims in the litigation against Venture, and Venture cannot compel them to arbitrate those claims. The case for Venture is that while arbitration "is a creature of contract" and "a party therefore cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which it has not agreed to submit," nevertheless the Second Circuit has "recognized a number of common law principles of contract law that may allow non-signatories to enforce an arbitration agreement, including equitable estoppel," citing Doe v. Trump Corp., 6 F.4th 400, 412 (2d Cir. 2021)(citations omitted). D. Equitable Estoppel and Second Circuit Precedent In Doe v. Trump Corporation, decided 10 months ago, the Second Circuit undertook a comprehensive review of "the equitable estoppel inquiry as governed by Second Circuit precedent," in cases deciding whether to compel arbitration. Judge Sack's opinion explains the decision in Doe, and also instructs district courts on how to resolve other comparable cases. As a recipient of that instruction, Judge Haight pays close attention to the Second Circuit's reasoning in Doe. The individual plaintiffs in Doe invested in a non-party entity called ACN Opportunity, LLC, a marketing company which offered various business opportunities to investors. The defendants in Doe were the Trump Corporation and individuals: Donald J. Trump and his three adult children, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump (collectively "the Trump defendants"). According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, their recruitment by ACN into business relationships did not work to their advantage. They alleged that "none of them succeeded in making a profit from the relationship or even earning back the money that they had invested in ACN." The Doe plaintiffs' contracts with non-party ACN contained arbitration clauses. The district court denied the Trump defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Second Circuit's reasoning in Doe explains why the court denied the Trump defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the ACN investor-plaintiffs' claims against them. The Trump defendants sought to enforce, on their behalf, an arbitration clause contained in contracts ("the IBO agreements") between ACN and the plaintiffs. Rejecting that effort, the Second Circuit said that there was no corporate relationship between the defendants and ACN of which the plaintiffs had knowledge, the defendants do not own or control ACN, and the defendants are not named in the IBO agreements between ACN and the plaintiffs. E. Resolution of The Case Judge Haight finds that the Second Circuit's decision in Doe, and the other cases cited, lead to the conclusion that the claims of Plaintiffs Julie Stewart and Zaker Ahmed against Defendant Venture Home must be submitted to arbitration. That is so, even though Venture Home, which moves to compel arbitration, is not a party to the underlying solar panel system contracts containing arbitration clauses, which the Plaintiffs entered into with other entities. In the circumstances presented by the case, the Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration of their claims against Venture Home. The Second Circuit precedents identify two elements which mandate arbitration of claims by or against non-signatories of arbitration agreements. These are the intertwining of contractual obligations; and a relationship between signatory and non-signatory parties whose nature justifies the invocation of equitable estoppel as a bar to avoiding arbitration of disputes between them. Both elements are present in the case at bar, Judge Haight holds. First, the solar panel system contracts between these Plaintiffs and the non-party entities (Sunnova or Sun Power) specifically identified non-signatory Venture Home as the designer and installer of the systems. Second, the specific identification of Venture Home in Plaintiffs' contracts with Sunnova or Sun Power as the "subcontractor," "dealer" or "installer" of the solar panel systems, leads readily to the inference that in signing those contracts, the Plaintiffs "had knowledge of, and consented to, the extension of their agreement to arbitrate to the non-signatories." Judge Haight concludes that the case at bar mirrors the elements which the cited Second Circuit cases hold mandate the application of the equitable estoppel principle. The Second Circuit decisions rejecting equitable estoppel do so because of entirely different circumstances, not present in the case. He concludes that these Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from avoiding Venture Home's demand for arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims against it. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Haight grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Stewart. Those parties are directed to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement between Plaintiff Stewart and non-party Sunnova. Judge Haight also grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Ahmed. Those parties are directed to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement between Plaintiff Ahmed and non-party Sun Power. Judge Haight denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff James, who has conceded through counsel that his claims against the Defendants are subject to arbitration in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement between him and Venture. Those parties are directed to proceed to arbitration accordingly. The action between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is stayed as to all parties, pending completion of the arbitrations. Judge Haight denies as moot the Defendants' alternative Motion to Dismiss the action. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2022 Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jcpvfa4 from Leagle.com. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Scheduling Order Amended in Connelly Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CONNELLY et al., v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01487-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Ivan D. Davis entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Parties' renewed joint motion to amend the discovery order entered May 17, 2022 and scheduling order entered May 31, 2022 to provide adequate time in this complex putative class action to conduct fact and expert discovery and to brief class certification and summary judgment. The Court further ordered that the Scheduling Order's deadlines shall be amended as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures: Dec. 19, 2022 -- The Defendants' expert disclosures: Jan. 24, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Feb. 8, 2023 disclosures: -- Close of discovery: March 10, 2023 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Aug. 12, 2023 motion for class certification: -- The Defendants' opposition to Oct. 4, 2023 class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support Nov. 3, 2023 of to class certification: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany. A copy of the Court's orderdated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xAGuAa at no extra charge.[CC] VTECH HEALTHCARE: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAVADA WHEELER, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. VTECH HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00561-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order approving conditional certification of this matter as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff seeks approval to send notice to putative collective members via U.S. Mail, email and text, and further have Defendant post notice. The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification and notice to be sent to: "All persons employed by vTech Healthcare, Inc., who were paid on an hourly basis and whose overtime rate did not include Nontaxable Per Diem compensation at any time since three years prior to filing the Complaint." vTech delivers healthcare staffing solution. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zwmukG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Paul Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY , LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scottt@bohrerbrady.com VVF INTERVEST: Parties Seek to Conditionally Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON ROBERTSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VVF INTERVEST, LLC, VVF KANSAS, LLC, & VVF KANSAS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02507-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the class for the purpose of sending notice: "Current and former non-exempt hourly employees who were employed by VVF at its Kansas facility any time from November 2, 2018 through the present;" 2. approving the Parties plan to provide notice of the collective action; 3. approving the Parties' Notice to the Class; and 4. tolling the statute of limitations during the notice period. On November 2, 2021, the Plaintiff Robertson filed a complaint, collectively and as a class action, against the Defendants alleging the underpayment of straight time and overtime compensation due and owing to all hourly, non-exempt, workers Defendants employed within the United States at its multiple facilities in Kansas, Illinois, and Ohio in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law. First, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendants imposed a rounding policy, practice, and/or procedure, applicable at each of its subsidiary companies throughout the United States, in which hourly, non-exempt, employees' clock-in and clock-out times are rounded up to the scheduled shift start time or rounded down to scheduled shift end time in favor of Defendants. Second, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants manipulated the FLSA workweek to avoid the payment of overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the putative class members. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully deduct compensable time from Plaintiff and the putative class members' weekly hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay all straight time and overtime compensation due and owing. Specifically, the Plaintiff and the putative class members are automatically deducted each shift for a 30-minute lunch break regardless of whether they are actually able to take the break. The Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's material allegations. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) for the following collectives: -- Unlawful Rounding Policy Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by the Defendants in hourly positions who worked and clocked in and out on an automated timeclock at any time from November 2, 2018 to the present;" -- Unlawful Workweek Manipulation Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by the Defendants in hourly positions who worked a shift that began on a Saturday and ended on a Sunday during any workweek from November 2, 2018 to the present;" -- Unlawful Deduction Policy Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by the Defendants in hourly positions whose hours worked were automatically deducted for lunch breaks at any time from November 2, 2018 to the present." A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qn5MKo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. David S. Kim, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLC 7111 W. 151 st St., No. 316 Overland Park, Kansas 66223 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com dkim@workerwageright.com - and - Patricia A. Konopka, Esq. Emily N. K. Monroe, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106-2150 Telephone: (816) 842-8600 Facsimile: (816) 691-3495 E-mail: pat.konopka@stinson.com emily.monroe@stinson.com VXI GLOBAL: Colleton Seeks to Recover Penalties Under PAGA ---------------------------------------------------------- SHERRY COLLETON, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, v. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC; a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18978 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2022) seeks to recover penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: -- (a) failure to accurately pay wages including overtime wages, -- (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; and -- (c) failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@j ameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Artificially Inflated Senior Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., JAMES C. FISH, JR., DEVINA A. RANKIN, JOHN J. MORRIS, and LESLIE K. NAGY, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of certain WM redeemable senior notes between February 13, 2020 and June 23, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, against WM and certain of the Company's senior officers and directors. The case arises from the defendants' materially false and misleading statements regarding the regulatory antitrust review of the merger between WM and ADS, which caused the prices of the notes to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. The Defendant is a waste management and environmental services company. WM shares trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "WM." WM is the largest waste management and environmental services company in the United States. Prior to its acquisition by WM, ADS was the fourth-largest waste management and environmental services company in the United States. Although they did not overlap in certain areas, WM and ADS competed against each other in 57 geographical markets covering 10 states in the eastern half of the United States, including Florida, where ADS was headquartered. Small container commercial waste (SCCW) collection is the business of collecting municipal solid waste ("MSW") from commercial and industrial accounts, usually in small containers (i.e., dumpsters with one to ten cubic yards capacity), and transporting or hauling that waste to a disposal site. Typical SCCW collection customers include office and apartment buildings and retail stores and restaurants. Commercial customers typically generate substantially more MSW than a residential customer. To handle this high volume of waste efficiently, haulers often provide commercial customers with dumpsters for storing the waste. Haulers organize their commercial accounts into routes, using a single driver/operator who collects and transports the MSW in front-end load trucks ("FEL") to a disposal facility, such as a transfer station, landfill, or incinerator, where the FEL truck operator empties the waste.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - David Harrison, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. Luke Goveas, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: 914/997-0500 E-mail: dharrison@lowey afarah@lowey.com lgoveas@lowey.com WHITE CUBE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Cube Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. White Cube Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04755 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. White Cube -- https://whitecube.com/ -- is one of the world's leading contemporary art galleries.[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 WHOLESOME SPIRITS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wholesome Spirits Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wholesome Spirits Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03349-WFK-PK (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wholesome Spirit, Inc. is located in New York City and is part of the Beverage Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Kelley Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE KELLEY, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, v. WILLAMETTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02196-SB (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her opposed motion to modify the scheduling order. Ms. Kelley contends that Court should grant her motion and modify the current Scheduling Order deadlines to vacate the current Rule 23 class certification briefing schedule and reset that deadline to align with any deadline for Defendants to move to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective. On December 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Original Class Action Complaint, asserting claims under Oregon wage and hour laws and the FLSA. The Court adopted a Case Management Schedule on April 5, 2021. The Parties jointly requested a prior extension on September 14, 2021, citing the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Oregon that arose at that time. The Court granted the Parties' request and set Plaintiff's deadline to move for Rule 23 class certification on June 27, 2022. The Court further noted it would "reset other case management deadlines after resolution of the motion for class certification." Thus, currently, there is no discovery deadline or trial date. Willamette Valley Medical Center is a for-profit Level III acute care hospital in McMinnville, Oregon, United States, adjacent to the McMinnville Airport on Oregon Route 18. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aRlzko at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ori Edelstein, Esq. Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com - and - Jordyn D. Rystrom Emmert, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 338-2560 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jemmert@schneiderwallace.com tajones@schneiderwallace.com - and - Jennifer R. Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com WILSON LOGISTICS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MOORE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, v. WILSON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 6:21-cv-03212-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting it an extension of time to June 30, 2022, within which to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and conditional certification as a collective action. The Plaintiff filed this action on August 12, 2021, raising minimum wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL) and common law. The Court entered its Scheduling Order on November 1, 2021. The Scheduling Order provides for two phases of discovery -- Phase I for discovery of all issues related to conditional/class certification, and Phase II for discovery relating to alleged damages and completion of any other merits issues. The Court also set a deadline of April 15, 2022, to complete Phase I discovery and to file any motion for conditional/class certification. The Court granted the parties' Joint Motion to move this deadline to May 16, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification and Conditional Certification as a Collective Action on May 16, 2022. Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, Defendant's opposition to the Motion is due on June 15, 2022. Wilson Logistics is a family-owned and operated organization with a diverse portfolio of solutions to solve clients' logistical needs. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b3Ty9u at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James C. Sullivan, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4900 Main Street, Suite 650 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 842-8770 Facsimile: (816) 842-8767 E-mail: jsullivan@fisherphillips.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 ***