/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220622.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 118 Headlines AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers File Class Action Over Prime Membership AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hurd Claims ANAPLAN INC: Stockholder Suit in California Terminated ARQIT QUANTUM: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Paolella Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. AURA BORA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline BADGLEY MISCHKA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BINANCE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Terra Stablecoin Crash BRGR STOP: Faces Smaling Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls BRIGHT HEALTH: Berger Sues for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Vansickle Suit Over Data Breach CAREDX INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 22 Deadline CBI DISTRIBUTING: Peralta Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir. CLASSIC PREP CHILDRENSWEAR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended in Bruno COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aguilo Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Stays Diaz Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Opioid Abuse COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Edwards Labor Suit in California Court COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Nevarez Suit Gets Final Nod COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of CA Labor Suit for Court Approval CREATIVE VENTURES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Repossession Notices DEERE & CO: Hapka Farms Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DENTSPLY SIRONA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline DIGITAL TURBINE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline DIGITAL TURBINE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline DOUGLAS COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DULCE TATI: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Faces Ong Labor Suit in California ELECTRIC BIKE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Vega Suit Over Share Price Drop ENERGY TRANSFER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline ENERGY TRANSFER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackin FDCPA Suit EQUINE NETWORK: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Michigan GOLDTHREAD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $118-MM HAND HOSPITALITY: Faces Son Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Penman Files Suit in D. North Dakota HIGHLAND HILL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California HIPCAMP INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HOMESICK BVG: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Prelim. OK IN PRIVATE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Faces Wallace Suit Over Unpaid Overtime KROGER CO: FOTE's Bid for Summary Judgment in White Suit Granted KYTE SYSTEMS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Suit MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Sandoval Suit MIMA USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MINES PRESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MSCS FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Retains Mutual Fund Fees, MBA Says MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action NCINO INC: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina NETFLIX INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline NUTANIX INC: Faces Norton Shareholder Suit in California Court NUTANIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court OKTA INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline OKTA INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 19 Deadline ORACLE CORP: Women Employees May Lose Pay Bias Class Action OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 11 Deadline PAPA JOHN'S: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bazemore Suit Claims PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Harris Says PATTERSON COS: $1.6MM in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Plymouth PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 18 Deadline PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS: Maldonado-Gonzalez's TRO Request Denied QYST INC: District Court Approves $25K Settlement in Short Suit RIPLEY OPERATOR: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Pay CNAs' Overtime RYZE CLAIM: $315K Class Settlement in Billings Suit Wins Final OK SAVE OLD GROWTH: Class Suit Mulled Against Road Blockades' Protests SPICE ALLIANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STEIFF NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania TELADOC HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline TP APPAREL: Faces Maddy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TWITTER INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in California USAA GENERAL: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Berardi and Smith Suits VERRICA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Brito-Munoz's Amended Class Complaint ********* AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers File Class Action Over Prime Membership ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Rosenblatt, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that Amazon could be facing two legal challenges from shoppers who say the company misled them and violated state law when it ended free delivery from Whole Foods Market for Prime members. Two groups of shoppers separately filed proposed class action lawsuits against the company in May and June, one accusing Amazon of breaching its contract by taking away a benefit of the Prime membership without lowering the subscription price or offering a refund, and the other arguing Amazon hid extra fees in order to "bamboozle" customers. Amazon "pulled the rug out from its customers" in October 2021 when it ended an offer for free delivery for Prime members on Whole Foods orders over $35, one lawsuit read. Since then, hundreds of thousands of shoppers paid for "a service that was unfairly terminated." Since acquiring Whole Foods in 2017, Amazon had said under its ownership the grocery store would expand access to high-quality and affordable food for its customers, particularly Prime members who would receive "special savings and in-store benefits." In February 2018, when Amazon first announced it would offer free two-hour delivery for Prime members on grocery orders over $35, Whole Foods Market co-founder and CEO John Mackey said the two companies "have already lowered prices on many items, and this offering makes Prime customers' lives even easier." That April, it increased the price of a Prime membership from $99 to $119 annually, the first increase since 2014, when it went up from $79 to $99. Three years later, in September 2021, Amazon told shoppers through an email blast it was ending free delivery for Prime members, and tacking on a $9.95 service fee for all grocery orders. This May, two Prime shoppers from California sued Amazon in a federal district court in Seattle, accusing the ecommerce company of violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act when it stopped offering the free grocery delivery. The free drop-offs were a "key perk" of Amazon's Prime membership offerings, the lawsuit read. Amazon ended the benefit after it increased the price of Prime but without offering Prime members a refund or an easy way to cancel their subscription as a result of the change, the plaintiffs argue. "Amazon has engaged in unfair business practices, breached its duty of good faith and deprived Prime members of the benefit of their bargain," the lawsuit read. The lawsuit comes months after Amazon again raised the price of a Prime membership, this time from $119 to $139 annually, or from $12.99 to $14.99 monthly. In both instances, Chief Financial Officer Brian Olsavsky told shareholders and consumers the extra cost was coming with extra benefits. In 2018, he said the price increase was a "natural consequence" of new perks, pointing specifically to free deliveries for Whole Foods orders over $35. In February, he championed access to stream Thursday Night Football and "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power," as well as the expansion of one-day shipping for some items. "It's not a static program," he said on a call with investors. "We'll continue to add faster shipping, greater video and other features. . . . We're pretty confident in the value proposition of our Prime offering." This year, Olsavsky said the increased price would also bring in more funds to offset rising expenses related to inflation, transportation and wages. Sales from subscription services, including Amazon Prime, increased 11% in the first three months of 2022, compared to the same time period the year before. That quarter, subscription sales totaled $8.4 billion, up from $8.1 billion at the start of 2021. Another Prime member, also in California, sued Amazon separately on June 7, accusing the company of misleading shoppers with ads that promised free delivery from Whole Foods as a perk of their Prime subscription. Despite ads in print, on TV and displayed on Amazon's own website, the company tacks on a "hidden delivery fee" as customers move through the shopping process, the lawsuit alleges, referring to the $9.95 service fee. Amazon also automatically adds a $5 tip on each order. That tip is optional but the text telling customers how to opt-out is small and hard to find, the lawsuit says. The practice of initially advertising one price and then revealing service fees and other charges at the end of a transaction is called "drip pricing," according to the Federal Trade Commission. Shoppers "would have wanted to know, as would any reasonable person, that [Amazon] charges a service fee in connection with grocery deliveries from Whole Foods Market," the lawsuit read. "And this information would have changed their and any reasonable customer's decision to purchase" from Whole Foods in the first place. The class action lawsuits, both of which are filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, could include thousands of Prime members. Amazon and Whole Foods could not be reached for comment, nor could the plaintiff who filed the most recent lawsuit. The shoppers who sued in May declined to comment through their lawyer, Thiago Coelho from Wilshire Law Firm. [GN] AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hurd Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, RICHARD HURD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-03451 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful corporate-wide policies and practices that violated the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Crew Member and as a Maintenance Technician from July 2, 2021 until December 23, 2021. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action alleging the Defendant of failure to timely pay him and other similarly situated manual workers' wages. Instead of paying on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly basis. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual workers have all been injured as a result of the Defendant's pay policies, practices, and patterns of conduct. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of underpayments, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and proper, says the suit. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. operates a movie theater. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Ave., Suite 1810 New York, NY Tel: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com ANAPLAN INC: Stockholder Suit in California Terminated ------------------------------------------------------ Anaplan, 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 2, 2022, that a putative class action complaint was filed against the company but was terminated in September 2021. In August 24, 2020, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al.," 3:20-cv-05959, against the company and certain of the company's executive officers. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on November 12, 2020, and on January 6, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, captioned "Sakkal v. Anaplan, Inc., et al." The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Anaplan, Inc. securities between November 21, 2019, and February 26, 2020, inclusive. The claims were based upon allegations that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of the company's prior public filings regarding the business, operations and prospects of the company. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 8, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice. On September 21, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal whereby the lead plaintiff agreed not to further litigate the case, and the Court subsequently terminated the case. Anaplan, Inc., based in California, provides a cloud-based Connected Planning platform using a software-as-a-service model. ARQIT QUANTUM: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. ("Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.") (NASDAQ: ARQQ) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of: (i) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Arqit securities between September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, inclusive; and/or (ii) all holders of Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger") and entitled to vote on the Merger. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp., contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=28379&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (3) the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather, providing grants to Arqit; (4) Arqit had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the Merger; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Aggrieved Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. investors only have until July 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Paolella Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the City of Valley Stream, et al. The case is styled as James Paolella, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Valley Stream, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Valley Stream, Respondents, Case No. 607555/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 10, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Valley Stream -- https://www.vsvny.org/ -- is a village in Nassau County, New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP 132 Spruce Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 AURA BORA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aura Bora, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Aura Bora, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03430-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aura Bora -- https://aurabora.com/ -- is a sparkling water made from real herbs, fruits, and flowers for earthly tastes and heavenly feelings.[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 AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. ("Axsome") (NASDAQ: AXSM) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Axsome, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/axsome-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28385&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Axsome includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Axsome's chemistry, manufacturing, and control ("CMC") practices were deficient with respect to AXS-07, the Company's medicine for the acute treatment of migraine, and its manufacturing process; (ii) as a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 New Drug Application ("NDA") on its initially represented timeline; (iii) the foregoing CMC issues remained unresolved at the time that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") reviewed the AXS-07 NDA; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: July 12, 2022 Aggrieved Axsome investors only have until July 12, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] BADGLEY MISCHKA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Badgley Mischka Licensing, LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Badgley Mischka Licensing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04870-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Badgley Mischka Licensing LLC -- http://www.badgleymischka.com/-- provides women apparel and accessories.[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 BINANCE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Terra Stablecoin Crash --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Kessler and Oliver Knight, writing for CoinDesk, report that "Those of you waiting for the earth to become unstable - I'm afraid you will be waiting until the age of men expires." These confident words tweeted by Terra blockchain founder Do Kwon sought to convince crypto investors to put their trust (and money) into terraUSD (UST), a stablecoin that Kwon promised would always stay priced at exactly $1. Unfortunately, Kwon's confidence was not enough to save UST and the rest of Terra as his entire project dropped to zero. Now, over 2,000 Terra investors say false marketing is what caused them to lose their money. In a class-action lawsuit filed on June 13 in The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, centralized cryptocurrency exchange Binance.US has been accused of misleading investors surrounding the Terra blockchain ecosystem. The suit marks the first major U.S.-based court filing relating to Terra, whose UST and LUNC tokens wiped out around $40 billion in investor funds when they crashed to pennies last month. The suit, which was filled by U.S.-based law firm Roche Freedman LLP, alleges that Binance.US marketed Terra's dollar-based UST as more stable than it actually was. According to the suit, when UST and its sister token luna classic (LUNC) crashed to zero in May, thousands of unsuspecting retail investors were caught completely off guard. Misleading advertising is what the suit says is to blame for those losses. The lawsuit also alleges that Binance.US is not registered as a broker-deal or an exchange, which may be in violation of securities law after it listed what might be an unregistered security in UST. The suit is also aimed at Binance.US CEO Brian Shroder. In a statement provided to CoinDesk, Kyle Roche, one of Roche Freedman's founding partners, said "Binance U.S. recklessly listed and promoted UST as a 'safe' stablecoin to those seeking to avoid the volatility of other cryptocurrencies. They, as well as other exchanges that listed UST, should be held accountable." Binance.US disputes the allegations made in the lawsuit. "Binance.US is registered by FinCEN and adheres to all applicable regulations. These assertions are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously," the company said in a statement to CoinDesk. While a successful suit would send chills down the spines of some decentralized finance (DeFi) founders and centralized exchange CEOs, it would embolden DeFi advocates who think decentralized tools for participating in crypto finance -- rather than centralized exchanges -- are necessary to avoid government censorship and burdensome regulations moving forward. The Terra crash Along with seasoned big-money backers like Hashed and Jump Crypto, the Terra collapse drained the wallets of thousands of unsuspecting retail investors. In the days following Terra's decline, its largest Reddit forum was filled with accounts of suicides (and above them, extensive resources on how those struggling could find help). The forum also featured criticism of Terra's highly vocal co-founder -- Do Kwon. Kwon, according to some Terra watchers, is primarily to blame for hyping up the promise that UST would always sit safely at $1. Just as he was making brash assurances around the security of UST, Kwon was building a system that onlookers like Kevin Zhou of crypto hedge fund Galois Capital said was built to fail. Upon these questionable foundations, Kwon nonetheless promoted the safety of UST (and its luna sister token) ceaselessly across social media -- loudly dismissing critics like Zhou. Even as UST first began to wobble off of its $1 peg (just a few days before it ultimately crashed), Kwon tweeted "Anon, you could listen to CT influensooors about UST depegging for the 69th time, Or you could remember they're all now poor, and go for a run instead." Deriding critics with adjectives like "poor" was not out of character for Kwon, but the founder was unusually silent for several days as his ecosystem eventually cratered. The question now is whether Kwon or his company will ultimately join Binance.US in facing potential legal penalties for their role in promoting Terra. A government panel is already awaiting Kwon in his native South Korea, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been nipping at Terraform Labs' heels for years. Kwon has reportedly been living in Singapore for the last several months, but the lawsuit adds to the evidence that Kwon will soon face legal battles around the world. Even so, Kwon's Terraform Labs -- which held a central role in creating the Terra ecosystem -- has yet to face a class-action lawsuit like this one. Apparently, it won't have to wait for long. According to FatMan -- a member of the Terra Research Forum and a vocal critic of Terra with a large Twitter following -- a suit against Terraform Labs is also coming, and it is likely to look similar to this one. FatMan helped orchestrate the June 13 suit by organizing a group of 2,000 aggrieved Terra investors who allege they were misled by a number of entities. FatMan told CoinDesk: "We will begin by filing mass arbitrations & class actions against the various exchanges. I will be helping them with some outreach (connecting to victims) but I have no real special role in the exchange suits. Then soon after we will file against TFL/Jump." On the Binance.US suit, they added: "Centralized exchanges have become highly accessible to the general public -- even my parents use them -- and as such, it is virtually a moral imperative for them to uphold a high standard of truth and risk disclosure. Telling people an asset is fiat-backed when it is not is fraudulent. "Telling people a coin is 1:1 pegged to the US dollar and selling it alongside USDC and USDT without the relevant risk disclosures is scummy. People were roped in with siren calls of 'safe, stable yields' -- but no attempt to help them actually understand what they were buying was made. This is morally unconscionable, and, in my opinion, it should be illegal." Looking ahead Should the suit succeed, it will prove monumental in defining the legal status of DeFi, which has thus far avoided clear regulations or heavy government oversight. Moreover, the fact that the suit seeks to hold a centralized exchange culpable for a token's advertising -- rather than the organization that launched it -- will hold wide implications for the shape of DeFi moving forward. It may portend a world where centralized exchanges are forced to more closely vet the tokens they support on their platforms. [GN] BRGR STOP: Faces Smaling Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH SMALING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRGR STOP CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a BRGR STOP, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008114 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant asserting a class action claim for monetary and treble damages pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made or caused to be made calls and/ or sent texts into Florida without the requisite "prior express written consent" in violation of the FTSA. The purpose of Defendant's telephonic sales call was solely to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services, says the suit. The complaint further asserts that Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. Defendant's call also inconvenienced Plaintiff, caused disruptions to Plaintiffs daily life, and caused Plaintiff to waste time dealing with Defendant's unsolicited text message/calls. BRGR Stop Concepts, LLC, d/b/a BRGR STOP, is a gourmet burger bar and gastropub.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile (954) 916-8499 E-mail: dover@attorneysoftheinjured.com BRIGHT HEALTH: Berger Sues for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BERGER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated holders of BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., Plaintiff v. KENDRICK D. ADKINS, JR., NAOMI ALLEN, LINDA GOODEN, JEFFREY R. IMMELT, MANUEL KADRE, STEVEN KRAUS, MOHAMAD MAKHZOUMI, MATTHEW G. MANDERS, G. MIKE MIKAN, ADAIR NEWHALL, ROBERT J. SHEEHY, ANDREW SLAVITT, and BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0487 (Del. Ch., June 3, 2022) is a verified complaint brought by the Plaintiff for declarative and injunctive relief against the BHG board of directors for their breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their approval of BHG's entry into an Investment Agreement with entities affiliated with New Enterprise Associates and Cigna Corporation. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action to compel the termination of the Investment Agreement as it constitutes an abuse of corporate power by BHG's fiduciaries. Allegedly, the Board used that Agreement to entrench itself by insulating the Board from potential challenges from unknown, unidentified, and purely hypothetical "activist" stockholders by contractually barring NEA and Cigna, who with individual members of the Board, now control over 50% of the outstanding shares of the Company, from mounting any challenges to the Board or Company management or even communicating with other "activist" shareholders, says the suit. Following BHG's initial public offering last June, the Company has performed poorly, and its stock price has fallen in kind. In response, BHG's Board has sought to immunize itself from any attempts to replace them or Company management, adds the suit. The Plaintiff owns shares of BHG common stock, and has continuously owned BHG common stock since August 3, 2021. Bright Health Group, Inc. is a health insurance company incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. John C. Kairis, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Vansickle Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- JIM VANSICKLE, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00374-DBP (D. Utah, June 3, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. On October 30, 2021, C.R. England discovered that it lost control over at least 224,572 former and current students' and employees' highly sensitive personal records in a data breach by cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, the stolen personal identifying information included, at least, students' and employees' names and Social Security numbers, says the suit. According to the complaint, C.R. England's misconduct has injured the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class in a number of ways, including: (i) the lost or diminished value of their personal identifying information; (ii) costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and other unauthorized use of their data; (iii) lost opportunity costs to mitigate the data breach's consequences, including lost time; and (iv) emotional distress associated with the loss of control over their highly sensitive personal identifying information. Mr. Vansickle is a former C.R. England student and employee and his personal identifying information was compromised by the alleged data breach. C.R. England is a national refrigerated carrier and trucker training school.[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 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com tlang@mohtrial.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Alex Phillips, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com alexp@turkestrauss.com CAREDX INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 22 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Attention CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx") (NASDAQ: CDNA) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased CareDx common stock between February 24, 2021, and May 5, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in CareDx, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/caredx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28388&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against CareDx includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes to inflate testing services revenue and demand, including pushing a surveillance protocol through inaccurate marketing materials, offering extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and other providers, and improperly bundling expensive testing services with other blood tests as part of the Company's RemoTraC service for remote, home-based, blood-drawing; (2) these practices, and others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of regulatory scrutiny; (3) these practices rendered the Company's testing services revenue reported throughout the class period artificially inflated; and (4) as a result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. DEADLINE: July 22, 2022 Aggrieved CareDx investors only have until July 22, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CBI DISTRIBUTING: Peralta Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- KIARA PERALTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBI DISTRIBUTING CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04864 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately November 2018 to June 2021 as a manual laborer. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated manual laborers on a timely basis as required by NYLL Section 191(1)(a). The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. CBI Distributing Corp. owns and operates a chain of Claire's retail stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Fred Kleiner filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled FRED KLEINER, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CENGAGE LEARNING HOLDINGS II, INC., CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., and DOE AFFILIATED ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10245-RGS, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. This is an action filed on February 14, 2022 pursuant to Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the common law, arising out of the unfair and deceptive practices engaged in by Cengage -- publishers of textbooks and other learning products authored by individuals like Plaintiff, Dr. Fred Kleiner. Acting on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly-situated parties, Dr. Kleiner seeks to rectify Defendants' unfair and deceptive royalty-reporting practices, which are designed to conceal from authors that Defendants systematically underreport and underpay royalties due and owed to Class Members, in the range of 10-30% of the royalties earned. Based on Cengage's annual reported revenues approaching $1.5 billion, and typical royalties amounts due to authors of 8-12% on sales, Cengage's practices conceal the underreporting of $12-$18 million, annually, in underpaid royalties, says the suit. On April 11, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which the Court granted on May 25, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge Richard G. Stearns. The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Kleiner v. Cengage Learning Holdings II, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1451, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 6, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance form and docketing statement are due today, June 22, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRED KLEINER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edward Vincent Colbert, III, Esq. CASNER & EDWARDS LLP 303 Congress St Boston, MA 02210-0000 Telephone: (617) 426-5900 - and - David Slarskey, Esq. Richard Weingarten, Esq. SLARSKEY LLC 420 Lexington Ave., Ste 2525 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 658-0661 Defendants-Appellees CENGAGE LEARNING HOLDINGS II, INC. and CENGAGE LEARNING, INC. are represented by: Michael H. Gibson, Esq. Alanna B. Newman, Esq. SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP 230 Park Ave New York, NY 10169-0000 Telephone: (212) 404-8726 - and - Michael Ross Gottfried, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 High St Ste 2400 Boston, MA 02110-1724 Telephone: (857) 488-4212 CLASSIC PREP CHILDRENSWEAR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Prep Childrenswear, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Classic Prep Childrenswear, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Classic Prep Childrenswear -- https://classicprep.com/ -- designs and manufactures classic, preppy kids' clothes of exceptional quality for babies and toddlers to tweens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended in Bruno ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vasquez Bruno v. Clean Advantage Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00816 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is stayed until the initial scheduling conference, says Judge Mehta. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial of overtime compensation Clean Advantage is a janitorial company that delivers cleaning and disinfection services for commercial and residential sectors.[CC] COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aguilo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AALIYAH AGUILO, et al., Plaintiffs v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-2054-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I. Background Based on a written contract, Cognizant provided content moderation services to Facebook. Those services involved reviewing media content reported by Facebook's users and removing any content that violated Facebook's terms of use--in other words, moderating Facebook's content. While content moderation can be done either electronically using algorithms or through human review, Cognizant provided the latter kind. To determine if the content violated Facebook's terms of use, Cognizant's content moderators reviewed large amounts of graphic and vile content posted on Facebook--such as murders, tortures, child pornography, and rapes. Early in 2020, Cognizant shut down its operations, including its Tampa location, and terminated all its content moderators. On Feb. 5, 2020, 13 former Cognizant content moderators filed a putative class action against both Cognizant and Facebook in state court, which Cognizant then removed to federal court -- Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-0585 (M.D. Fla. 2020). The plaintiffs in that action, who purported to represent a class of all Cognizant-employed content moderators in Florida and Arizona, alleged that Cognizant failed to disclose the inherent dangers associated with content moderation and that the plaintiffs suffered from PTSD and other physical and psychological harms from reviewing large amounts of graphic content. The plaintiffs in that first action asserted claims against Cognizant for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation and for violating FDUPTA. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim with prejudice and the fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation claim without prejudice. While the plaintiffs did not bring a separate medical monitoring claim, the dismissal order explained that, even if they had separately alleged a medical monitoring claim, the claim was most likely inapplicable to the alleged facts. The plaintiffs in the prior action never sought leave to amend. Instead, on July 27, 2021, 131 former employees who worked at Cognizant's Tampa location, including the 13 named plaintiffs from the first action, brought the present action against Cognizant in state court. The Plaintiffs jointly assert one claim for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation (as in the former action) and one standalone claim for medical monitoring. The Plaintiffs' theory of liability remains the same as the putative class action: They seek damages and a medical monitoring fund to treat "the psychological trauma and related physical injuries" Cognizant caused by "deliberately concealing" and "fraudulently misrepresenting" to the Plaintiffs the known dangers of long-term and unmitigated content moderation. Cognizant removed the action, and moves to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The Plaintiffs oppose that motion. II. Analysis Cognizant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim either for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I) or medical monitoring (Count II). As to the former, Cognizant argues that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Further, Cognizant contends that the fraudulent concealment claim fails because Cognizant owed Plaintiffs no duty to disclose this information and, regardless, a reasonable person exercising due diligence would know that repeated exposure to graphic content could negatively impact mental health. As for medical monitoring, Cognizant argues that claim fails because Florida law does not recognize medical monitoring for psychological harms and because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege facts supporting each element. Judge Mizelle concludes that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claim fails to comply with Rule 9(b) as to each individual Plaintiff and is dismissed on that basis. Additionally, the fraudulent concealment claim fails because -- as currently alleged -- Cognizant had no duty to disclose the dangers of content moderation to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Finally, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for medical monitoring because Florida courts have not applied medical monitoring to claims based on psychological harm and because they fail to adequately allege the elements of a medical monitoring claim. III. Disposition For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mizelle grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendant without prejudice. She dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring against the Defendant is with prejudice. If the Plaintiffs elect to proceed in the action, they must file an amended complaint no later than June 24, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/44e4zhfb from Leagle.com. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Stays Diaz Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that in March 2022, an employee filed a class action against the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the failure to pay wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages, and reimburse business expenses under case captioned "Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 22STCV09513, Los Angeles Superior Court. The Court stayed the case, including the company's filing of a responsive pleading, pending the initial status conference. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates membership warehouses and e-commerce websites. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Opioid Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that it is named in a consolidated multi-district litigation captioned "In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation," MDL No. 2804, N.D. Ohio. Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payers, and others. Included are cases that name the company, including actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payer in Ohio, and a hospital in Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. Claims against the company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates membership warehouses and e-commerce websites. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Edwards Labor Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that it is facing a labor suit captioned "Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 5:21-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal.). In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. In May 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss later that month. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to amend. In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and filed a separate representative action under PAGA asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The company filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint, denying the material allegations. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates membership warehouses and e-commerce websites. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Nevarez Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that the court granted a settlement a March 2019 employees' class action captioned "Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 (C.D. Cal.) against the company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices and sought, under the California Labor Code, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. Settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the settlement was granted on May 3, 2022. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates membership warehouses and e-commerce websites. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of CA Labor Suit for Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that a settlement for a class action against the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code filed in September 2021 by an employee captioned "De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS, Sacramento Superior Court, was agreed upon and subject to court approval. Said action alleges violations of the California Labor Code regarding the alleged failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of California's unfair competition law. The company answered the complaint in January 2022, denying its material allegations. In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates membership warehouses and e-commerce websites. CREATIVE VENTURES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Creative Ventures, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04869 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Creative Ventures -- https://creativeventures.vc/ -- is a deep tech venture firm investing in early-stage companies solving humanity's most critical crises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Repossession Notices --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ROSS, JAMAL MOORE, ROBERT SMITH and REGINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 220600443 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 3, 2022) is a consumer class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated people, who have had their motor vehicle repossessed by the Defendant in Pennsylvania and were subsequently sent a post-repossession consumer disclosure notice and/or post-sale explanation of deficiency notice. The complaint seeks monetary relief in the form of minimum statutory damages to address an unlawful and deceptive pattern of wrongdoing by CAC, which includes failure to comply with the strict statutory requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code, independently, and in pari materia with the state's Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, regarding notices of repossession and post-sale notices, says the suit. Credit Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company providing automobile loans and other related financial products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (412) 716-5800 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 DEERE & CO: Hapka Farms Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Hapka Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deere & Co. doing business as: John Deere, Case No. 0:22-cv-00503 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-50203 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Deere & Co. doing business as John Deere -- https://www.deere.com/en/index.html -- is an American corporation that manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, forestry machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in heavy equipment, and lawn care equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Email: r.yard@rwblawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq. JONES DAY 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 217-8800 Email: bellison@jonesday.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Dentsply Sirona Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) between June 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Dentsply common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Dentsply class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6111 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants orchestrated a scheme to inflate Dentsply's revenue and earnings by manipulating its accounting for a distributor rebate program in order for senior executives to be eligible for significant cash and stock-based incentive compensation; (2) in order to facilitate this scheme, Dentsply and its executives made numerous false and misleading statements to investors during the Class Period; (3) accordingly, Dentsply's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules, and Dentsply's internal controls over financial reporting were deficient throughout the Class Period; and (4) as a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Dentsply's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. As a result of the foregoing, When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Dentsply class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6111 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Dentsply Sirona Inc. ("Dentsply") (NASDAQ: XRAY) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Dentsply's common stock between June 9, 2021, and May 9, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Dentsply, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28390&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: According to the filed complaint, defendants orchestrated a scheme to inflate Dentsply's revenue and earnings by manipulating the Company's accounting for a distributor rebate program so that senior executives would be eligible for significant cash and stock-based incentive compensation. In order to facilitate this scheme, Dentsply and its executives made numerous false and misleading statements to investors during the class period. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Dentsply's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. DEADLINE: August 1, 2022 Aggrieved Dentsply investors only have until August 1, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] DIGITAL TURBINE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPS) between August 9, 2021 and May 17, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Digital Turbine securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Digital Turbine class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6272 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in certain of their respective product lines; (2) as a result, revenues for those product lines must be reported net of license fees and revenue share, rather than on a gross basis; (3) the Company's internal control over financial reporting as to revenue recognition was deficient; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's net revenues was overstated throughout fiscal 2022; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To join the Digital Turbine class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6272 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DIGITAL TURBINE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Digital Turbine, Inc. ("Digital Turbine") (NASDAQ: APPS) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between August 9, 2021 and May 17, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Digital Turbine, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/digital-turbine-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28393&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Digital Turbine includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in certain of their respective product lines; (2) as a result, revenues for those product lines must be reported net of license fees and revenue share, rather than on a gross basis; (3) the Company's internal control over financial reporting as to revenue recognition was deficient; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's net revenues was overstated throughout fiscal 2022; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: August 5, 2022 Aggrieved Digital Turbine investors only have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] DOUGLAS COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas Company, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Douglas Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04876 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Douglas -- https://douglascuddletoy.com/ -- creates soft and cuddly toys and offers a great selection of breed-specific plush, baby toys, lovable stuffed animals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DULCE TATI: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dulce Tati LTD. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dulce Tati LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-04916 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dulce Tati LTD. is a business entity located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Faces Ong Labor Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ONG, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV398881 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 3, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for penalties and/or damages for violations of the California Labor Code, and restitution for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to: (a) properly pay minimum, regular and overtime wages for all hours worked off-the-clock; (b) provide compliant meal breaks, or pay meal period premiums in lieu thereof; (c) properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying meal and/or rest period premium pay; (d) pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay; (e) pay all wages owed upon separation of employment; and (f) provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from July 2021 until April 4, 2022. eHealthlnsurance Services, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers accidental, travel, health, life, dental, vision, pet, and other insurance services for individuals, families, and businesses. eHealthInsurance Services operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Kelsey Webber, Esq. Shaelyn A. Stewart, Esq. WEBBER LAW GROUP, P.C. 1215 K Street, 17th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 588-0683 E-mail: Kelsey.Webber@WebberLawGroup.com Shaelyn.Stewart@webberlawgroup.com ELECTRIC BIKE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric Bike Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Electric Bike Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04867 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Electric Bike Technologies, Inc. -- https://electricbiketechnologies.com/ -- offers performance electric bicycles and tricycles, electric bike motors, electric bike batteries, electric bike conversion kits and various other electric bicycle products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Vega Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ MIKE VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL S. MCCREA III, BRADFORD DICKERSON WHITEHURST, AND JOHN W. MCREYNOLDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04614 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Energy Transfer stock between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Partnership and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants concealed and misrepresented that: (a) Energy Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy Transfer through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC hired third-party contractor to conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017; (c) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was actively investigating the Partnership's wrongdoing related to the April 13 Release and consistently provided it with updated information about FERC's findings on this matter. These omissions and misrepresentations caused Energy Transfer's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, says the suit. On December 16, 2021, FERC publicly issued to Energy Transfer an Order To Show Cause And Notice of Proposed Penalty, which proposed a $40 million fine for the inadvertent release incident. On this news, the price of Energy Transfer shares declined $0.24, or 2.8% over the course of two trading days, to close at $8.25, on December 20, 2021. As a result of Energy Transfer's wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Energy Transfer LP is a company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport. It is organized under Delaware state laws and headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Farah, Esq. Yuanchen Lu, Esq. Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: afarah@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET) between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 2, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Energy Transfer securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Energy Transfer class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6844 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 2, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or concealed and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Energy Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to such controls and procedures; (2) Energy Transfer through its subsidiary hired third-party contractors to conduct horizontal directional drilling activities ("HDDs") for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River in Ohio when the April 13, 2017 release of drilling mud near the Tuscarawas River (the "April 13 Release") took place; and (3) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil liabilities when Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") was actively investigating Energy Transfer's wrongdoing related to the April 13 Release and consistently provided it with updated information about FERC's findings on this matter. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Energy Transfer class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6844 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ENERGY TRANSFER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Attention Energy Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer") (NYSE: ET) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Energy Transfer stock between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Energy Transfer, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28392&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Energy Transfer includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Energy Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy Transfer, through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC, hired a third-party contractor to conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017; (c) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") was actively investigating the Energy Transfer's wrongdoing related to the April 13 release and consistently provided it with updated information about FERC's findings on this matter. DEADLINE: August 2, 2022 Aggrieved Energy Transfer investors only have until August 2, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackin FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JILL JACKIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, d/b/a Enhanced Resource Centers, d/b/a ERC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I. Background Plaintiff Jackin brings the class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., against the Defendant, on behalf of Washington consumers whose private debt-related information was allegedly disclosed by the Defendant to an unauthorized third party in the collection of the consumers' debt. At bottom, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a practice of providing protected consumer debt-related information to unauthorized third-party mail vendors in violation of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff's grievance stems from a debt collection letter she received on Jan. 13, 2021. At some point, the Plaintiff owed a consumer debt. The Defendant, a debt collector as defined under the FDCPA, attempted to collect on the debt. The letter the Plaintiff received on Jan. 13, 2021 identified the Defendant as a debt collector and stated: "this is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose." The letter identified the creditor to whom the Plaintiff owed the debt, the account and reference numbers, and the amount of the debt. Upon inspection of the letter, the Plaintiff noticed that the return address did not match the Defendant's address. In fact, the return address was a P.O. Box in Oaks, Pennsylvania, even though the Defendant does not have a Pennsylvania address. Upon further inspection, the Plaintiff determined that the letter was sent by RevSpring, a third-party mail vendor and software company. By providing RevSpring the letter, the Defendant conveyed to RevSpring information regarding the Plaintiff and the debt owed -- including the Plaintiff's name and address, the amount of the debt, the creditor of the debt, and other details. RevSpring then printed and mailed the letter to the Plaintiff. At no time did the Plaintiff give the Defendant consent to disclose the information contained in the letter to RevSpring. The Plaintiff alleges this practice violates the FDCPA and brings the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the action, arguing that its use of a commercial mail vendor to collect consumer debts does not violate the FDCPA. II. Discussion The FDCPA was enacted as a broad remedial statute designed to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors. Under the Act, without the prior consent of the consumer, "a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector." Though the Act does not explicitly permit debt collectors to communicate debt-related information to third-party mail vendors, the Defendant contends that disclosures to these commercial vendors are not actionable under the Act. Upon review of the record, Judge Mendoza finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b) and has therefore plausibly stated a claim against the Defendant. Section 1692c(b) broadly prohibits debt collectors from "communicating with third parties in connection with a consumer's debt." While this prohibition is subject to several carefully defined exceptions, the statute does not explicitly provide an exception for commercial mail vendors. The single question before the Court, then, is whether the FDCPA nonetheless exempts from liability debt collectors who transmit consumer debt-related information to mail vendors. Upon review of the record and the relevant legal authority, Judge Mendoza finds that in enacting the FDCPA, Congress used language that, on its face, bars debt collectors from communicating consumer-debt related information to mail vendors. As such, "the Court must assume that Congress meant what it said, and it will enforce the statute that way." III. Conclusion Judge Mendoza recognizes the economic burden that his holding may have on the Defendant, as the Defendant can no longer legally outsource its collection efforts to commercial mail vendors in the same manner. But the Court must take Congress at its word, which here bars the Defendant's outsourcing practice. The statute explicitly provides for several disclosure exemptions, but mail vendors are not included in those exemption. Judge Mendoza, therefore, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter the Order and provide copies to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpjcc678 from Leagle.com. EQUINE NETWORK: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equine Network, LLC. The case is styled as Amy Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equine Network, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-11289-NGE-CI (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Equine Network -- https://www.equinenetwork.com/ -- provide the equine community with best-in-class competitions, content, products, and services that deepens their love for horses and horse sports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com GOLDTHREAD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldthread LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goldthread LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04892 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goldthread -- https://drinkgoldthread.com/ -- offers Plant Based Tonics that are expertly-formulated and packed with super-herbs, spices and adaptogens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com GOOGLE LLC: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $118-MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Burnson, writing for Insurance Journal, report that Alphabet Inc.'s Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit with about 15,500 female employees, lawfirms representing the women said in a statement. In addition, an independent expert will analyze Google's hiring practices and and independent labor economist will review the company's pay equity studies, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP said in the statement on June 10. The settlement couldn't be confirmed on the court docket. "As a woman who's spent her entire career in the tech industry, I'm optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of this settlement will ensure more equity for women," Holly Pease, one of the plaintiffs, said in the statement. The settlement was reached on the same day a judge in another long-running Silicon Valley pay bias case - involving Oracle Corp. - tentatively decertified its class action status, ruling that it would be unmanageable to proceed to trial with a class of more than 3,000 employees in 125 different job classifications suing. The Google settlement involves women in 236 different job titles, according to the law firms. Similar lawsuits against Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have failed to gain class-action status. The Google deal must be approved by a judge. A hearing on a preliminary approval is scheduled for June 21, the law firms said. The women leading the Google suit said in a court filing that the company paid female employees approximately $16,794 less per year than a "the similarly situated man," citing an analysis by David Neumark, an economist at University of California at Irvine. The case is Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299, San Francisco Superior Court. [GN] HAND HOSPITALITY: Faces Son Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- Soonja Son and Mi Ae Kang on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAND Hospitality LLC, Cho Dang Gol LLC, Toledo 53 Inc., Yeonhee Kim, Chanhong Min, and Kihyun Lee, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04639 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, illegal retention of employee gratuities, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide accurate wage notices, failure to provide wage statements, and for unlawful retaliation. Plaintiffs Soonja Son and Mi Ae Kang were employed by Defendants as servers at Cho Dang Gol from May 1, 2021, to the present and from July 11, 2021, to the present, respectively. HAND Hospitality LLC and Cho Dang Gol LLC are Korean tapas restaurants based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Penman Files Suit in D. North Dakota ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Penman, on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated royalty owners v. The Mines Press, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., June 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Hess -- http://www.hess.com/-- is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6250 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com stacy@bartonburrows.com - and - Joshua A. Swanson, Esq. Robert B. Stock, Esq. VOGEL LAW FIRM (FARGO) 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo, ND 58107-1389 Phone: (701) 237-6983 Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com rbslitgroup@vogellaw.com HIGHLAND HILL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highland Hill Capital LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Highland Hill Capital LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-03983 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Highland Hill Capital -- https://www.highlandhillcap.com/ -- is a nationally accredited financing company driven by the desire to provide purposeful solutions to each one of our clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com HIPCAMP INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hipcamp Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hipcamp Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03431-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hipcamp -- https://www.hipcamp.com/en-US -- is an online marketplace company that offers outdoor stays and camping experiences via a website and mobile app.[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 HOMESICK BVG: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homesick BVG, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Homesick BVG, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04899-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Homesick -- https://homesick.com/ -- offers natural soy wax blend scented candles and fragrance oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY HAMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00204 (Erie) (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e). It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Judge Lanzillo preliminarily certified the proposed Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: All Blind or Visually Impaired individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from accessing The Hundreds Is Huge Inc.'s Digital Properties including its Website at https://www.thehundredsishuge.com and/or Mobile Appl from the United States. Judge Lanzillo approves and designates Plaintiff Murphy as the representative of the Settlement Class. Upon oral motion by Attorney Kevin W. Tucker, Esq., Judge Lanzillo appoints Attorney Chandler Steiger and Attorney Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group, LLC as additional Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Notice and Notice Plan are approved. Within 21 days of the Order (Notice Deadline), the Defendant shall: a. cause the Notice to be published on a search-engine-optimized settlement website operated by a stipulated class action settlement administrator or similar entity; b. add invisible anchor text in the header of the Website's homepage which reads, Click to view our ADA Class Action Settlement Notice and which links to the Notice published by the stipulated class action settlement administrator or similar entity; and c. request that Achieva, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, Blinded American Veterans Foundation, Blinded Veterans Association, Foundation Fighting Blindness, Guide Dogs for the Blind, National Association of Blind Merchants, National Council on Disability, National Federation of the Blind, Foundation for the Blind, Blinded American Veterans Foundation, Blinded Veterans Association, Foundation Fighting Blindness, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Lighthouse Guild International, National Association of Blind Merchants, and the National Council on Disability, publish a link to the Notice in their respective electronic newsletters so that notice is sent out within 60 days of the Preliminary Approval. Within 10 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Defendant or its counsel will file a declaration evidencing compliance with the notice provisions of the Order. Within 10 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel will file its motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Sept. 15, 2022, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Any Settlement Class Member may object to the Settlement Agreement by filing, within 60 days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court, written objections with the Clerk of the Court. Only such objecting Settlement Class Members will have the right, and only if they expressly seek it in their objections, to present objections orally at the Fairness Hearing. Responses by Representative Plaintiff to any timely-filed objections will be made no less than five days before the Fairness Hearing. The counsel for the parties are authorized to utilize all reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement which are not materially inconsistent with either the Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2h6fv4c3 from Leagle.com. IN PRIVATE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In Private Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. In Private Inc.., Case No. 1:22-cv-04893-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Private Inc. is located in New York City and is part of the Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Faces Wallace Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBBIE WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS FOR THE FUTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00105-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 10, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Qualified Behavior Provider (QBP) from November 2019 until April 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated QBPs regularly worked more than 40 hours each week. However, the Defendant failed to record the total hours worked by its QBPs, thereby failing to properly compensate them for the all the hours they have worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendant also failed to reimburse them for mileage or travel expenses, says the suit. Kids for the Future, Inc. offers rehabilitative services for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Edmondson, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (800) 615-4946 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: laura@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com KROGER CO: FOTE's Bid for Summary Judgment in White Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PHILLIP WHITE, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08004-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Defendant Fruit of the Earth, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. I. Background In this putative class action, named Plaintiff White contends that sunscreen products sold by Defendant Kroger under its "house brand," are misleadingly labeled as "reef friendly," when they in fact contain ingredients with the potential to damage reefs. White alleges he purchased one specific product, Kroger(R) Sport Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package. White also seeks relief, however, with respect to more than a dozen other products, which he acknowledges he never purchased, but which he alleges are "substantially similar" to the purchased product. Defendant Fruit of the Earth, Inc. ("FOTE") is alleged to be "one of the owners, manufacturers, and/or distributors" of the products listed in the complaint as misleadingly labeled. The undisputed evidence, however, is that FOTE did not manufacture, distribute, or have any connection with the purchased product. FOTE is the manufacturer of four of the other products listed in the complaint, which White did not purchase. Arguing that White has no standing to pursue any claim against it, FOTE seeks summary judgment. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for June 16, 2022, is vacated. II. Discussion FOTE has presented evidence that it has nothing to do with the manufacture or distribution of the product White purchased, Kroger(R) Sport Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package. White does not argue otherwise, or contend there is any triable issue of fact on that point. The sole basis of White's opposition is his contention that the court already decided to postpone until the class certification stage the question of whether White may properly serve as the class representative for products that he did not purchase, but which other putative class members did. Indeed, the order denying Kroger's motion to dismiss (to which FOTE was not a party) declined to dismiss or strike allegations in the complaint asserting claims arising from products White did not purchase. FOTE is not in the same position as Kroger, however. In Kroger's case, it was undisputed (at least at the pleading stage) that Kroger sells all of the listed products and is therefore potentially liable for misrepresentations made in connection with sales of those products. Whether White may serve as the class representative as to unpurchased products is a question for another day. FOTE, in contrast, does not manufacture, distribute, or sell the product White purchased. FOTE does not even have potential liability to White, or to any putative class member, for any misrepresentations in the sale of that product. Nor is there a question that more appropriately should be adjudicated at the class certification stage. As to the claims against Kroger, the alleged "substantial similarity" among all the challenged products it sells either will or will not be sufficient to give White a right to represent the class as to products he did not personally purchase. There are no putative class members, however, who have claims against FOTE arising from sales of Kroger(R) Sport Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package. "Substantial similarity" is therefore irrelevant. As noted, FOTE apparently does manufacture and distribute some of the other products listed in the complaint. Given the basis on which summary judgment is being granted, this order and any final judgment resulting from it will not have a preclusive effect should any putative class members who purchased those products seek to name FOTE as a defendant with respect to those products, either as newly named plaintiffs in the action or in a separate action. Nevertheless, FOTE's motion for summary judgment must be granted at this juncture. If the parties believe entry of a separate judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate at this time, they may propose one. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Judge Seeborg grants FOTE's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw82yzbb from Leagle.com. KYTE SYSTEMS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyte Systems Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kyte Systems Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04871 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kyte -- https://drivekyte.com/ -- is the best way to get a car. Kyte offers cars delivered to people's doorsteps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings filed an appeal from a court ruling granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled LUKE DAVIS, JULIAN VARGAS, et al., v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00893-FMO-KS, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of: (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (3) California's Disabled Persons Act (CDPA). The Unruh Act and CDPA claims are brought by Vargas on behalf of himself and a putative California class, while the remaining federal claims are brought by plaintiffs on behalf of the Nationwide Injunctive Class. The Plaintiffs allege that LabCorp discriminates against them and other visually impaired individuals, "by refusing and failing to provide auxiliary aids and services to Plaintiffs, and by requiring [them] to rely upon other means of communication that are inadequate to provide equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from Defendant's health care services free from discrimination." As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2022, the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order: 1. certifying the following classes: -- Nationwide Injunctive Class "All legally blind individuals in the United States who visited a LabCorp patient service center in the United States during the applicable limitations period and were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e- check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals;" and -- California Class "All legally blind individuals in California who visited a LabCorp patient service center in California during the applicable limitations period and were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals;" 2. appointing Luke Davis and Julian Vargas as the representatives of the Nationwide Class and Vargas as the representative of the California Class; and 3. appointing the law firms of Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP and Handley, 4 Farah & Anderson, PLLC as class counsel. The Defendant now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Luke Davis, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 22-80053, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 6, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, and Does 1-10 are represented by: Robert Steiner, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-7965 - and - Becca Wahlquist, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP 350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 547-4916 Plaintiffs-Respondents LUKE DAVIS, JULIAN VARGAS, and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alison Marie Bernal, Esq. Jonathan Miller, Esq. NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 - and - Matthew Keith Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON, PLLC 200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 - and - Benjamin Sweet, Esq. NYE STIRLING HALE AND MILLER 1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 Telephone: (412) 857-5350 MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Sandoval Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GEORGINA C. SANDOVAL and TODD M. NORTH, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-09396 (SDW) (AME) (D.N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion: a. granting Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; and b. denying Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. I. Background The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Midland Funding ("MF"), Midland Credit Management ("MCM"), and John Does 1 to 10, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., by sending "falsely threatening" collection letters to the Plaintiffs in May and June of 2017 containing language stating that "you are hereby notified that a negative report on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to meet the terms of your credit obligations" (the "Credit Reporting Language"). The Plaintiffs claim that the letters were false and misleading because MCM had allegedly already begun reporting their accounts to credit reporting agencies ("CRAs") before sending the collection letters. Ms. Sandoval opened a Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. credit card account. On Dec. 17, 2015, the Sandoval Account was sold to MF and thereafter serviced by MCM. On Jan. 6, 2016, MCM mailed to Sandoval a LT1Y letter (the "Welcome Letter") advising Sandoval that her account was sold to MF. The Welcome Letter also contained the Credit Reporting Language advising that "you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit-reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations." Thereafter, the Defendants mailed Sandoval a series of collection letters containing the Credit Reporting Language, which advised Sandoval of her obligations and the Defendants' rights. At a November 2019 deposition, Sandoval testified that she was not confused by the Credit Reporting Language and was aware that the Credit Reporting Language in the Welcome Letter and the May 2017 Collection Letter meant that the Sandoval Account may be reported to the credit reporting agencies if payments were not made. Ms. Sandoval further testified that she was aware that the Sandoval Account was reporting on her credit report prior to May 2017. Sandoval did not call, write, or make a payment to Defendants after receiving the May 2017 Collection Letter. She admitted that nothing in the Welcome Letter or May 2017 Collection Letter prevented her from making payment on the Sandoval Account or disputing the debt on the Sandoval Account. Instead, in December 2017, Sandoval sent a letter to MCM requesting a copy of the credit card agreement for the Sandoval Account. Thereafter, MCM opened an investigation regarding the letter and ultimately requested that the credit reporting agencies change the status of the Sandoval Account to "Disputed." Mr. North opened a Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. credit card account. On April 20, 2015, the North Account was sold to MF and thereafter serviced by MCM. On May 1, 2015, MCM mailed to the Plaintiff a LT1U Letter containing the Credit Reporting Language stating that "as required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations." Thereafter, the Defendants mailed to North multiple collection letters containing the Credit Reporting Language, which advised as to North's obligations and the Defendants' rights. At a January 2022 deposition, North testified that he was not confused by the Credit Reporting Language and understood that the North Account would be reported to credit reporting agencies on a recurring basis as a result of failing to make payments. North testified that he was aware that the North Account was reporting on his credit report prior to receiving the June 2017 Collection Letter. He did not contact the Defendants, dispute the debt owed, or express confusion regarding the Credit Reporting Language. He admitted that nothing in the June 2017 Collection Letter prevented North from making payment on the North Account or forced North to make payment on the North Account. Prior to reporting a consumer's account to the CRAs, MCM asserts that it sends multiple letters to the consumer containing the Credit Reporting Language advising that the consumer's account may be reported to the CRAs if payments are not made. It asserts that it does not report accounts to the CRAs that are paid in full. Thus, only after a consumer chooses not to pay his or her delinquent account will MCM begin reporting the account to the CRAs. On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint, followed by their First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2018, and Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 15, 2019. They assert claims against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Thereafter, on Feb. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to adjudicate their FDCPA claims against the Defendants. On April 19, 2021, the Defendants opposed certification and the Plaintiffs replied on April 26, 2021. On July 7, 2021, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Following discovery, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on Dec. 20, 2021. The Plaintiffs then cross-moved to dismiss their Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All subsequent briefing was timely filed. II. Discussion A. The Plaintiffs Have Suffered No Concrete Harm Sufficient to Confer Article III Standing to Pursue Their FDCPA Claims Against Defendants The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing under Article III because the Plaintiffs cannot prove a concrete harm and have put forward no evidence to show that they suffered any concrete harm. Notably, in the wake of Ramirez, the Plaintiffs have conceded that they have suffered no concrete harm. However, at the outset of the action and throughout its course, the Plaintiffs strenuously argued that they suffered harm arising from their receipt of collection letters from Defendants containing the Credit Reporting Language because Defendants had already begun credit reporting before sending the collection letters. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled to believe that meeting the terms of their credit obligations would prevent negative reporting on their credit record. Significantly, Judge Wigenton holds that the evidence at summary judgment does not support such claims. The record evidence clearly shows that the Plaintiffs did not make any payments on their debts after receiving the May 2017 Collection Letter and June 2017 Collection Letter and failed to make payment because of their financial means to do so. She says, it is evident that the Plaintiffs did not rely on the Credit Reporting Language and have suffered no harm from reading the Credit Reporting Language. The record evidence further establishes that Plaintiffs received multiple letters containing, inter alia, the Credit Reporting Language before Defendants began reporting the Sandoval Account and North Account to the CRAs. Accordingly, Judge Wigenton rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. The decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021) underscores any harm that the Plaintiffs previously alleged or could have alleged. Thus, Judge Wigenton need not reach the issue of subject matter jurisdiction because the record evidence unequivocally establishes that the Plaintiffs have suffered no concrete harm sufficient to confer Article III standing. B. Applying the Least Sophisticated Debtor Standard to the Credit Reporting Language, the Credit Reporting Language Was Not Misleading or Threatening The FDCPA provides a private cause of action to consumers who have suffered "the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices." Section 1692e of the FDCPA generally prohibits the use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt" and includes a non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct including, but not limited to, using "any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer." Judge Wigenton holds that applying the least sophisticated debtor standard, the Credit Reporting Language stating was not "false, deceptive, or misleading." The least sophisticated debtor would not be misled by such simple, non-threatening language because the Credit Reporting Language in the various collection letters only provided notice that the delinquent accounts were subject to credit reporting and advised Plaintiffs that negative credit reports may be submitted for continuing to fail to pay their debts. The Credit Reporting Language, as the Plaintiffs admitted, merely reflected that Defendants had the right to submit credit reports indicating that the accounts remained unpaid, which is synonymous with a widely known fact that failure to pay debts that are owed might adversely affect one's credit record. Importantly, Judge Wigenton finds that the record evidence has demonstrated that the Plaintiffs received multiple letters from MCM containing the Credit Reporting Language before any credit reporting was ever submitted on their accounts due to Plaintiffs' unpaid accounts. Therefore, summary judgment is also warranted because the Credit Reporting Language in the collection letters was not "false, deceptive, or misleading" in violation of the FDCPA. Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not address or dispute the Defendants' argument that the language at issue plainly does not violate the FDCPA. They have maintained throughout the course of the action up until the Defendants moved for summary judgment that the Plaintiffs have suffered an injury. It is only now, in what could be considered "gamesmanship" that the Plaintiffs admit that they have suffered no injury and the matter should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. III. Conclusion The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with prejudice, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss is denied, and the Defendants' Request for Sanctions is denied. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/tv9pr9sc from Leagle.com. MIMA USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mima USA LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mima USA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04912 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mima Kids USA -- https://www.mimakidsusa.com/ -- offers the perfect luxury strollers, high chairs, & baby accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MINES PRESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mines Press, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Mines Press, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04914 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Mines Press -- https://www.minespress.com/ -- provides online printing services and marketing supplies for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MSCS FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Retains Mutual Fund Fees, MBA Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as Sponsor and Administrator of the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEES 401K) PLAN and the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN, and CRAIG MEIDINGER, as Trustee of the MBA Engineering, Inc. Employees 401(k) Plan and the MBA Engineering, Inc. Cash Balance Plan, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MSCS FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OF BROADRIDGE BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING, LLC, MATRIX TRUST COMPANY, and MATRIX SETTLEMENT AND CLEARANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01221-K (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2022) is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 arising from Defendants' unlawful conduct of retaining and transferring substantial amounts of funds from more than 100,000 account holders through nondisclosure and concealment. According to the complaint, the Defendants have retained and transferred, without satisfying strict disclosure obligations, three categories of funds: shareholder servicing fees, finders fees, and sub-administration fees (collectively, the "Mutual Fund Fees"). The Defendants worked together to collect the Mutual Fund Fees, retain a portion of them, and transfer more than 90% of them to third parties-in-interest, e.g. third party administrators, says the suit. The Defendants' actions constitute multiple violations of ERISA as well as state laws for those putative class members which were not governed by ERISA, the suit added. Plaintiff MBA Engineering, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a qualified plan under ERISA with legal status to sue in its own right. MSCS Financial Services Division of Broadridge Business Process Outsourcing, LLC is owned by the same parent company as Matrix Trust with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Matrix contracted with MSCS Financial to perform services for the putative class members in securities transactions as Defendants' affiliated FINRA-member registered broker-dealer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold Shokouhi, Esq. Justin N. Bryan, Esq. D. Aaron Dekle, Esq. 3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 741-2662 Facsimile: (214) 741-1741 E-mail: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com jbryan@mccathernlaw.com adekle@mccathernlaw.com - and - Evan Selik, Esq. 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullen Automotive, Inc. ("Mullen") (NASDAQ: MULN) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the company's securities between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mullen and certain of the company's executive officers failed to disclose material information to investors concerning the company's business, operations, and financial results. Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Mullen overstated its ability and timeline regarding production; (ii) Mullen overstated its deals with business partners; (iii) Mullen overstated its battery technology and capabilities; and (iv) Mullen overstated its ability to sell its branded products. On April 6, 2022, Hindenburg Research issued a report entitled "Mullen Automotive: Yet Another Fast Talking EV Hustle," which detailed several alleged issues with the Company. Following the release of that report, shares of Mullen's stock declined over 10% in value, to close on April 6, 2022 at $2.38 per share. Mullen investors who purchased shares of the company's stock prior to April 6, 2022 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (484) 229-0750, or by email (abell@kaskelalaw.com) or online at https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/mullen-automotive-inc/, for additional information about this investigation and their legal rights and options. Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. CONTACT: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 (888) 715-1740 (484) 229-0750 www.kaskelalaw.com [GN] NCINO INC: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- nCino, 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 on March 12, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Suit alleges a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among the company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not to solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2. The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees, the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest. The complaint does not allege any specific damages. nCino is a financial technology company. NETFLIX INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix, Inc.") (NASDAQ: NFLX) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock or call options, or sold put options, between January 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Netflix, Inc., contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28380&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Netflix, Inc. includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services; (2) the Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were being adversely affected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Aggrieved Netflix, Inc. investors only have until July 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] NUTANIX INC: Faces Norton Shareholder Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix, 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 2, 2022, that on May 28, 2021, John P. Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002, filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of persons or entities who transacted in publicly traded call options and/or put options on Nutanix stock during the period from November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, containing allegations substantively the same as those alleged in the Current Complaint (the Options Class Action) and naming the same defendants. On September 8, 2021, the court appointed John P. Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead plaintiff in the Options Class Action. In April 26, 2022, the parties met for mediation, which did not result in a settlement. Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform, based in California. NUTANIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix, 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 2, 2022, that class action complaints were filed against the company alleging violations of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint. Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and two of its officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again naming the company and two of its officers as defendants. It alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the original complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. In September 11, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and held that the lead plaintiff adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements regarding the company's new customer growth and sales productivity. Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform, based in California. OKTA INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until July 19, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Okta, Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS:OKTA), if they purchased the Company's securities between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Okta as above and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-okta/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by July 19, 2022. About the Lawsuit Okta and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On March 22, 2022, the Company disclosed that it had detected an attempted hacking attack in late January 2022, and that, "[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity detected in January." Later that same day, the Company disclosed that "[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the hackers'] claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of customers - approximately 2.5% - have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon." On this news, shares of Okta fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022. The case is City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Okta, Inc., No. 22-cv-02990. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] OKTA INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Okta, Inc. ("Okta") (NASDAQ: OKTA) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Okta, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/okta-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28387&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Okta includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity contrAols; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: July 19, 2022 Aggrieved Okta investors only have until July 19, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ORACLE CORP: Women Employees May Lose Pay Bias Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Malathi Nayak and Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg, report that women at Oracle Corp. suing over alleged pay disparities took a big step backward, while more than 15,000 female workers at Google crossed the finish line. Under a judge's tentative ruling on June 10, the Oracle women are poised to lose the class-action status they earlier won that gave them powerful leverage in a five-year court fight with their employer. Alphabet Inc.'s Google, meanwhile, agreed to pay $118 million to resolve claims filed under California's Equal Pay Act that the company pays men more than women for doing the same job. A California state judge agreed with Oracle on that it would be unmanageable to proceed to trial with a class of more than 3,000 female employees in 125 different job classifications. In 2020, the three women leading the suit against Oracle achieved a milestone by becoming the first to win class-action status in a discrimination case against a large technology company. Aggregating claims on behalf of a large group allows plaintiffs to pool resources and negotiate for a much bigger payout. Female engineers at both Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. failed to persuade judges to let their gender-bias cases proceed as class actions and those rulings were upheld on appeal. The women suing Google fared better, winning a ruling in 2021 that allowed the case to advance on behalf of 11,000 women seeking more than $600 million. The women said in a court filing that the company paid female employees approximately $16,794 less per year than a "the similarly situated man," citing an analysis by an economist at University of California at Irvine. The accord announced on June 10 by lawyers for the plaintiffs covers about 15,500 women at Google in 236 different job titles. In addition to the settlement fund, an independent expert will analyze Google's hiring practices and and independent labor economist will review the company's pay equity studies, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP said in the statement on June 10. The settlement couldn't be confirmed on the court docket. "As a woman who's spent her entire career in the tech industry, I'm optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of this settlement will ensure more equity for women," Holly Pease, one of the plaintiffs, said in the statement. The Google deal must be approved by a judge. A hearing on a preliminary approval is scheduled for June 21, the law firms said. Alphabet representatives didn't respond after regular business hours to a request for comment. In the Oracle case, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope, who tentatively granted the company's request to decertify the class, set a hearing on the matter for June 13 in Redwood City. Before the 2020 ruling, Oracle argued that the lawsuit wrongly compares women and men tagged with the same job codes even though such coding doesn't mean the work requires similar skills, effort or responsibility, because Oracle's products and services vary so widely. Jim Finberg, an attorney representing the women, said he plans to persuade the judge to change his tentative ruling. If that doesn't work, "it is fair to say that, at some point, we will appeal the decision," he said. An Oracle spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The Oracle case is Jewett v. Oracle America Inc., 17-CIV-02669, California Superior Court, County of San Mateo (Redwood City). The Google case is Ellis v. Google LLC, CGC-17-561299, California Superior Court, County of San Francisco. [GN] OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 11 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased in or traceable to Oscar's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Lead plaintiff motions for the Oscar Health class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 11, 2022. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/oscar-health-recover-your-losses-ipo-lawsuit There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Oscar Health class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Oscar Health class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bazemore Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW BAZEMORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC. and PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00311-RGJ (W.D. Ky., June 10, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver since the fall of 2019 to the present. According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally operable, and insured automobiles to use to deliver pizza and food items. As a result, they have incurred automobile expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefits of the Defendants. However, the Defendants have employed an allegedly flawed reimbursement policy which reimburses their delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of their automobile expenses. Because of the Defendants' systemic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses, the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages diminished beneath the minimum wage requirements, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants for himself and all other similarly situated delivery drivers to recover all unpaid and underpaid wages. The Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper in equity and under the law. The Corporate Defendants comprise a single integrated enterprise and jointly operate hundreds of Papa John's pizza stores in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISSON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union St., Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and – J. Chris Sanders, Esq. BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC 1041 Goss Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 Tel: (502) 587-2002 E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Harris Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00943-CEF (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, bailment, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence arising from its failure to prevent the occurrence of data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failure to detect that its databases were subject to a security breach. On May 13, 2022, Defendant announced in a press release that it was investigating a data security incident that occurred on March 14, 2022. The Defendant's investigation included assistance of a forensic investigation firm and other third-party cyber security and incident response professionals. According to the complaint, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (PII), Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered or are at increased risk of suffering from the loss of the opportunity to control how their PII is used, the diminution in the value and/or use of their PII entrusted to Defendant, and loss of privacy, the suit adds. The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former employees of Defendant who provided certain personal identifying information to Defendant which is required as a condition of employment and to obtain employment benefits. Parker Hannifin is a multinational manufacturing and engineering company that specializes in motion and control technologies throughout the United States and the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. Robert B. Sherwood, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com rsherwood@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com PATTERSON COS: $1.6MM in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Plymouth ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, NC., et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB (D. Minn.), Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants the Lead Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4). Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) and Permitting Notice to the Class dated Feb. 3, 2022, due and adequate notice was directed to all the Class Members, and there were no objections to the request for attorneys' fees and expenses. Judge Davis awards the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 33-1/3% of the Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of $1,563,412.71, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. He finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate and that the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under the "percentage-of-recovery" method. The fees and expenses will be allocated among the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in a manner which, in the Lead Counsel's good-faith judgment, reflects each such counsel's contribution to the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Litigation. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Class Representatives Plymouth County Retirement Association, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension Plan, and Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System are awarded $7,087.95, $5,715.68, $8,866.50, and $9,375.00, respectively, for their representation of the Class during the Litigation. The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and interest earned thereon will immediately be paid to the Lead Counsel subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation. Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval of any attorneys' fee and expense application will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Order and Final Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and Class Members for all matters relating to the Litigation, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or enforcement of the Stipulation and the Order. If the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dfybyeh4 from Leagle.com. PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA), Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL), Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA), and Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA) advertisement Class Period: May 29, 2020 - May 9, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 18, 2022 PEGA develops customer relationship management software. In its SEC filings during the Class Period, PEGA consistently informed investors that its internal "research and development organization is responsible for product architecture, core technology development, product testing, and quality assurance." The Company also stated that it maintained a written Code of Conduct applicable to its board of directors and all employees "including our principal executive officer," which included an express commitment: "Never [to] use illegal or questionable means to acquire a competitor's trade secrets or other confidential information, such as . . . stealing, seeking confidential information from a new employee who recently worked for a competitor, or misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information." On May 29, 2020, Appian Corporation ("Appian"), a principal competitor of PEGA, filed a civil complaint in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia against PEGA and fan employee of a government contractor using Appian software, alleging claims for trade secret misappropriation, violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, tortious interference, and statutory business and common law conspiracy (the "Appian Litigation"). The Appian complaint alleged efforts by PEGA to obtain Appian trade secrets through the contractor's employee, who had access to Appian's software and materials. The complaint further alleged that PEGA's own employees, including its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), misrepresented themselves as potential customers of Appian partners to improperly gain access to Appian's trial software. Despite the obvious materiality of the Appian Litigation, including its allegation that PEGA had essentially stolen Appian's trade secrets and caused Appian massive damages, in violation of SEC reporting regulations, for nearly two full years during the Class Period Defendants never disclosed or described the Appian Litigation in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or annual reports on Form 10-K. When they did finally discuss the Appian Litigation, Defendants falsely assured investors that the claims asserted in the litigation were "without merit," PEGA faced no exposure in the litigation because Appian's alleged damages "are not supported by the necessary legal standard of proximate cause," and, even if PEGA was found liable, it was "unable to reasonably estimate possible damages." The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian; (2) Defendants' product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of PEGA's CEO; (4) PEGA's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with PEGA's written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was "unable to reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about PEGA's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. The truth regarding PEGA's fraudulent conduct was revealed after the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA's misappropriation of trade secrets. In response to this news, PEGA's stock price fell 21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to digest the verdict, PEGA's stock price dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per share the following day. For more information on the Pegasystems class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PEGA Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL) Class Period: November 1, 2020 - May 19, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022 Humbl is a mobile financial services company that offers investors various financial products associated with "Web 3" technology and decentralized finance. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's growth prospects, technological advancements, international partnerships, and financial benefits for Humbl common stock and digital asset investors, as well as using selectively timed announcements to keep Humbl stock price high so that Company insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially created volume. The complaint also alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by selling its unregistered securities (BLOCK ETX digital assets) to investors. On April 25, 2022, the price of the Humbl common stock hit a low of $0.11 per share, down from a price high of $6.84 during the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover. Likewise, the price of BLOCK ETX has dropped over 87% from its height during the Class Period and has not recovered. For more information on the Humbl class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/HMBL Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA) Class Period: March 5, 2021 - March 22, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022 Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government agencies in the U.S. and internationally. The Company offers a variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following its completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Auth0"), on May 3, 2021 (the "Merger"), Okta began providing additional Auth0 products related to cybersecurity and login solutions. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted screenshots on their Telegram1 channel showing what they claimed was Okta's internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22, 2022, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Todd McKinnon ("McKinnon"), posted a statement on his Twitter account, disclosing that, "[i]n late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt to compromise the account of a third party customer support engineer working for one of our subprocessors"; that "[t]he matter was investigated and contained by the subprocessor"; that "[w]e believe the screenshots shared online are connected to this January event"; and that, "[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity detected in January." On this news, Okta's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022. Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement on Okta's website, the Company's Chief Security Officer ("CSO"), Defendant David Bradbury ("Bradbury"), disclosed, inter alia, that "[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of customers - approximately 2.5% - have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon." Following Okta's updated statement, multiple news outlets reported that hundreds of the Company's clients were potentially affected by the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN published an article entitled "Okta concedes hundreds of clients could be affected by breach[,]" noting that, despite the Company's statement that "a small percentage of customers -- approximately 2.5% -- have potentially been impacted[,]" the Company "has over 15,000 customers, according to its website." That same day, Reuters and others published similar reports. Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from "strong buy" to "market perform," noting, among other things, that "[w]hile partners were willing to trust Okta's track record, the handling of its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns." Following Okta's after-market update and Raymond James downgrade, the Company's stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. For more information on the Okta class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OKTA Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV) Class Period: May 13, 2021 - April 18, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022 Enservco, through its subsidiaries, provides well enhancement and fluid management services to the onshore oil and natural gas industry in the United States. Recently, the Company has employed several tactics in an apparent effort to strengthen its balance sheets. For example, in August 2020, Enservco's Board of Directors approved a transaction to, inter alia, exchange 50% of the Company's subordinated debt with Cross River Partners, L.P. ("Cross River Partners"), a related party. Enservco's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Richard A. Murphy, is managing member of Cross River Capital Management, LLC, the general partner of Cross River Partners. On February 3, 2021, Enservco exchanged the remaining 50% of its subordinated debt with Cross River Partners. In addition, the Company awarded a warrant to Cross River Partners to purchase up to 150,418 additional shares of the Company's common stock in the future at an exercise price of $2.507 per share. Moreover, during the second quarter of 2021, Enservco amended payroll tax returns originally filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2020 to claim refundable Employee Retention Credits ("ERCs")—a type of tax credit provided for under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act")—for those periods. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enservco had defective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, there were errors in Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope and severity of its financial reporting issues; (v) accordingly, the Company could not file its delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC within its initially represented timeline; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it had "concluded that the Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021" (collectively, the "Relevant Periods") "should no longer be relied upon largely because of the Company's accounting for a conversion of debt to equity with a related party," namely, Cross River Partners. The Company further advised that it had "misinterpret[ed the] eligibility for certain employee retention tax credits under relevant provisions of the [CARES Act]" and would "amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Periods." On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $3.21 per share on March 28, 2022. On March 31, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it could not timely file the Company's annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 because the Company was "in the process of restating [its] financial statements and preparing amendments to its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filings for the Relevant Periods, which must be completed prior to the completion and filing of the [Company]'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021." On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 7.78%, to close at $2.49 per share on April 1, 2022. On April 4, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that its Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Marjorie A. Hargrave, "is departing the Company and will no longer be an executive officer and employee of the Company effective April 22, 2022." On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.19 per share, or 7.48%, to close at $2.35 per share on April 5, 2022. On April 11, 2022, Enservco filed amended quarterly reports with the SEC for the Relevant Periods, each of which reported adjusted net losses that increased, and adjusted other income that decreased, significantly for their respective periods. Then, on April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that the Company "will not be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 within the 15-day extension period provided by the Company's 12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again] amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Periods." On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.38 per share, or 10.47%, to close at $3.25 per share on April 19, 2022. For more information on the Enservco class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ENSV About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 03-CV-22-900553 was removed from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on June 10, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00355-ECM-SMD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is an American insurance company, the third largest insurance carrier and the No. 1 commercial auto insurer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Hiett Waller, Esq. WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC 3595 Grandview Pkwy; Ste. 500 Birmingham, AL 35243 Phone: (205) 313-7330 Email: jwaller@waller-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Ariana Bernard, Esq. Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq. Karl A. Bekeny, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Ave., Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 - and - M. Wesley Smithart, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 581-1571 Email: wsmithart@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS: Maldonado-Gonzalez's TRO Request Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARMEN MALDONADO-GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS AND SEWER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 22-1250 (RAM) (D.P.R.), Judge Paul M. Arias-Marxuach of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denies the Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order. I. Background Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint seeking damages, injunctive and declaratory relief due to the allegedly inadequate water service provided by the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewer Authority ("PRASA") to subscribers residing in the Municipality of Morovis. On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs the Municipality, Carmen Maldonado-Gonzalez, in her personal and official capacity as Mayor of the Municipality, and six residents of the Municipality, all of whom are PRASA subscribers, filed a putative civil rights class action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Sectuib 1983 against PRASA, its Executive Director Doriel Pagan-Crespo, its Regional Executive Director Jose A. Rivera-Ortiz, and its unnamed insurance company. The Plaintiffs contend that as subscribers, they have a constitutionally protected right to continued and adequate water service from PRASA. Despite this, they claim that for years, the Municipality has continuously lacked adequate water service that the problem has worsened since 2017, after Hurricane María. As remedies, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. In the relevant part, the Verified Compliant asks the Court to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against the Defendants: (1) ordering the Defendants to continuously provide adequate water service to PRASA's subscribers in the Municipality of Morovis, (2) enjoining the Defendants from shutting down the water service in the Municipality of Morovis, (3) ordering Defendants to take affirmative and immediate steps to fix the water service problem in the Municipality of Morovis, including of connecting the Municipality of Morovis' water system to PRASA's superaqueduct, and (4) imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendants, including co-Defendant Insurance Company ABC, for each day (or part of the day) that PRASA fails to provide water to its subscribers in the Municipality of Morovis, at a rate of $1,000 per day, per Plaintiff and/or class member. II. Discussion Judge Arias-Marxuach finds that it has long been established that under federal law, ex parte temporary restraining orders "should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer." In the case at bar, the Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order that would provide them "with affirmative relief changing the status quo." The requested temporary restraining is thus improper, as it would not preserve the status quo and amount to a determination on the merits. III. Scheduling Order To address the remaining claims of the Verified Complaint, Judge Arias-Marxuach orders that summons will be issued forthwith, and the Plaintiffs will serve Usdc4 process upon the Defendants by June 24, 2022. Defendants PRASA, Doriel Pagan-Crespo, and Jose A. Rivera-Ortiz will plead or otherwise defend regarding the Verified Complied within 14 days of service of process. The parties will exchange the Mandatory Initial Disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) within 21 days of service of process. An Initial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for July 22, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Arias-Marxuach in the Court, located at 150 Carlos Chardon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico in Courtroom 7. The counsel will be prepared to discuss the matters listed in Local Rule 16(a) and whether the preliminary injunction request can be adjudicated based on a stipulated record. By July 29, 2022, the parties will file a joint motion containing: (a) joint stipulations of fact; (b) factual stipulations proposed by the Plaintiffs and rejected by the Defendants including the latter's basis for rejecting each proposed stipulation; (c) factual stipulations proposed by the Defendants and rejected by the Plaintiffs including the latter's basis for rejecting each proposed stipulation; (d) the names and summaries of the expected testimony of the witnesses each party intends to call to testify at a preliminary injunction hearing; (d) the name, field of expertise and summaries of the expected testimony of the expert witnesses each party intends to call to testify during that hearing; (e) a list of the documents each party intends to call during that hearing. The Plaintiffs will serve the Order upon the Defendants personally and by electronic mail no later than June 24, 2022. IV. Conclusion For the reasons discussed, Judge Arias-Marxuach denies the temporary restraining order requested by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs will comply with the timeline outlined. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum & Scheduling Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddtpjfy from Leagle.com. QYST INC: District Court Approves $25K Settlement in Short Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BILLY SHORT, Plaintiff v. QYST INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-2730 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the parties' motion to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. Before the Court is an unopposed motion for approval of a settlement agreement, regarding the claims for overtime compensation brought by Plaintiff Short under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (the "PMWA") against Defendant Qyst. I. Background The Defendant operates multiple automotive centers in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's center in Media, Pennsylvania, as a mechanic from approximately May 2015 to June 2020. On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this civil action, alleging that the Defendant violated the FLSA and the PMWA by failing to properly compensate him for all of the hours he worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he typically worked 50 hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for the weeks that he worked over 40 hours. In its answer, the Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff did not typically work 50 hours per week and was an overtime-exempted employee. Following the initial exchange of disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and discovery requests, the parties, each represented by the counsel, engaged in arms-length settlement negotiations. The negotiations culminated in the memorialized proposed Settlement Agreement currently pending the Court's approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for the Plaintiff to receive $16,250 and for the Plaintiff's counsel to receive $8,750. II. Discussion Having reviewed the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement, Judge Alejandro is satisfied that it is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" and, further, does not impermissibly frustrate implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. Judge Alejandro is satisfied that a bona fide dispute exists as to both the Defendant's liability and the Plaintiff's damages under the FLSA. As evidenced by the Plaintiff's complaint and the Defendant's answer, the action involves disputed issues of fact as to whether the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week and whether the Plaintiff was an overtime-exempt employee. Based on the pleadings, it is clear that a bona fide dispute exists regarding the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses thereto. When determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, Judge Alejandro Court must consider the Third Circuit's nine-factor test for evaluating proposed class action settlement agreements, i.e., the Girsh factors. The Girsh factors include: (1) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. No one factor, however, is dispositive. Because Girsh was a class action, some of the factors are of "little help, if not irrelevant in the single-plaintiff context." In the case, Judge Alejandro finds that factors 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are relevant to the single-plaintiff action. After considering these factors, he finds that they weigh in favor of approving the proposed Settlement Agreement. She finds that (i) had the parties not reached this settlement, this matter would have proceeded to further discovery (Factor 1); (ii) the parties had an opportunity to identify and grasp the strengths and weaknesses of each party's case (Factor 3); (iii) the proposed Settlement Agreement avoids the risk that Defendant may not be found liable (Factor 4); (iv) the proposed settlement amount of $25,000 -- which represents approximately 121% of the $20,670 the Plaintiff claims to be owed -- is a positive result (Factor 5); and (v) the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the parties' bona fide disputes (Factors 8-9). Having determined that the proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the parties' disputes, Judge Alejandro must determine whether the Settlement Agreement furthers or "impermissibly frustrates" implementation of the FLSA. After reviewing the proposed Settlement Agreement's confidentiality provision, she finds that it is sufficiently limited in scope. The confidentiality provision prohibits the parties from making statements to the media, with the exception of noting an amicable resolution and directing the media to the public record, and it prohibits the parties from disparaging one another. The Plaintiff is otherwise permitted to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the public will have access to the approved Settlement Agreement. District courts in this Circuit have found such confidentiality provisions sufficiently limited in scope. In sum, neither the release of claims nor the confidentiality provision impermissibly frustrates the implementation of the FLSA. As compensation for their legal services and efforts, the Plaintiff's counsel requests that the Court approves the provisions of the proposed Settlement Agreement that provide for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $8,750. This fee and cost portion represents 35% of the total settlement amount. Although the contingency agreement was not filed in support, the Plaintiff's counsel relies upon the Declaration of Mark Gottesfeld, attached to the motion, to establish the reasonableness of the fee and to explain that the Plaintiff's counsel is employed by a pure contingency fee law firm. Judge Alejandro approves the request for attorney's fees and costs, which she finds to be reasonable. III. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Alejandro grants the parties' motion to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. She finds that the request for attorney's fees and costs is reasonable, and awards the Plaintiff's counsel attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $8,750. An Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/42btjrjy from Leagle.com. RIPLEY OPERATOR: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Pay CNAs' Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- STACY CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current, Plaintiff v. RIPLEY OPERATOR, LLC d/b/a RIPLEY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02361-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 10, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at the Defendant's Ripley, Tennessee facility. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated CNAs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek during their employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, they were paid "straight time" without overtime. The Defendant allegedly calculates overtime bi-weekly rather than weekly as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff adds. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated CNAs, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, as well as litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Ripley Operator, LLC provides a long-term skilled nursing care and short-term disability, rehabilitation solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com RYZE CLAIM: $315K Class Settlement in Billings Suit Wins Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LESLIE BILLINGS, Plaintiff v. RYZE CLAIM SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01767-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, grants the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and his unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and Enhancement Award. I. Introduction On June 10, 2022, the Court held a Fairness Hearing in the matter and a hearing on Plaintiff Billings' unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and his unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and Enhancement Award. The hearing took place via video conference. The Court heard argument from the counsel regarding the fairness of the class action settlement in the matter, and regarding Mr. Billings' unopposed Motions. II. Background Mr. Billings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sets forth class claims alleging that Ryze violated various California statutes related to, among others, the payment of minimum and overtime wages and compensation for meal and rest periods. On Feb. 16, 2022, after the parties had conducted discovery and participated in settlement conferences, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Specifically, the Court conditionally certified the following Settlement Class: "Consistent with the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, all individuals who are or have been employed by Defendant as a claims adjuster within the State of California at any time from October 20, 2013, to December 15, 2021. The term employed by Defendant as used in the operative complaint and here excludes individuals who worked for RYZE exclusively as Form 1099 independent contractors. The Settlement Class consists of only 25 individuals." The Settlement Agreement provides for payment of a Gross Settlement Amount of $315,000, which includes: (1) a $15,000 Service Award paid to Mr. Billings; (2) a payment of $3,000 in settlement administration costs to the Settlement Administrator; (3) attorneys' fees not to exceed $78,750 and costs not to exceed $18,000 paid to Class Counsel; and (4) a pro rata share of the remainder of the Gross Settlement Amount to participating class members. The Court preliminarily found that the Settlement Agreement resulted from arm's-length negotiations, that the Settlement Agreement is "sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to the members of the Settlement Class," and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are "fair, reasonable, and adequate." It also preliminarily found that the settlement class met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Court approved the form of notice proposed by the parties, and the procedure by which notice would be given. After administering the settlement, Mr. Billings filed an unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and an unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and Enhancement Award. III. Discussion A. Class Certification 1. Rule 23(a) Analysis Mr. Billings argues that his class meets all four requirements of Rule 23(a). The Supreme Court has instructed that the district court must perform a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied because "'actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains indispensable.'" It is the plaintiff's burden to prove first that an identifiable class exists that merits certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The four prerequisites under Rule 23(a) are: "(1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; (2) that there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Class certification is not appropriate unless the named plaintiff establishes all four prerequisites. First, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that Mr. Billings has met the numerosity requirement. The parties agree that the class consists of 25 members, which is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Billings' burden of showing that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. Second, she finds that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. The common question is whether Ryze violated various California statutes by misclassifying claims adjusters; failing to pay overtime and double time premiums; failing to adopt a policy regarding, to provide, and to pay for meal and rest periods; and failing to pay for certain business expenses. The Class members' claims are the same, and their injuries are likely the same as well. Third, she finds that Mr. Billings' claims are typical of the claims of the class. Mr. Billings has the same claims as the class members -- violations of various California labor statutes. Fourth, she finds that Mr. Billings and his counsel will adequately represent the interests of the class. 2. Rule 23(b) Analysis Finally, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that Mr. Billings has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and if the Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting individual class members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy. Having already found that Mr. Billings has satisfied the commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2), Judge Magnus-Stinson concludes that the common questions in this case predominate over any individual questions because the class members' claims are based upon the same legal theories, and resolution of one class member's claim will resolve the claims of all class members. B. Fairness of Settlement Agreement and Appropriateness of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards After reviewing the Settlement Agreement and information presented regarding the administration of the settlement, and considering the information presented by counsel at the hearing, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that the settlement in the matter was reached in good faith and at arm's length, and is a reasonable compromise of the vigorously disputed issues in the case. As for the amount of attorneys' fees and costs requested, she finds that a ratio of 27.05% -- representing the percentage of the total settlement value that the attorneys' fee request comprises -- is reasonable. The total settlement amount paid into the fund for distribution to the class is $315,000. After subtracting attorneys' fees requested ($78,750), litigation costs ($14,935.35), the service award paid to Mr. Billings ($15,000), and the settlement administration costs paid to the Settlement Administrator ($3,000), the resulting amount is $203,314.65. The ratio of the fee requested by Mr. Billings' counsel ($78,750) to the fee plus what the class members would receive ($78,750 + $203,314.65 = $282,064.65) is 27.92%. Judge Magnus-Stinson further finds that a service award of $15,000 to Mr. Billings is reasonable. She says, the $78,750 in attorneys' fees, $14,935.35 in costs, a $15,000 service award to Mr. Billings for serving as the class representative, and a $3,000 payment to the Service Administrator are reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant ratio. IV. Conclusion In sum, Judge Magnus-Stinson grants Mr. Billings' unopposed Motions, to the extent that she finally approves the Settlement Agreement; finally certifies the class defined; appoints Mr. Billings as the class representative; appoints David P. Myers, Robert M. Kitson, and Jason Hatcher of The Myers Law Groups, APC as the class counsel; and awards $78,750 in attorneys' fees and $14,935.35 in costs, a service award of $15,000 to Mr. Billings, and $3,000 in settlement administration costs to the Settlement Administrator, all to be paid from the $315,000 settlement fund. The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without fees, costs or disbursements to any party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Order as to the Plaintiff's counsel's fees and costs, the service award to Mr. Billings, and the settlement administration costs to the Settlement Administrator. Final judgment will be entered accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dwes6zs from Leagle.com. SAVE OLD GROWTH: Class Suit Mulled Against Road Blockades' Protests ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Arnold, writing for MyCampbellRiverNow, reports that a class-action lawsuit is being considered by a group to prevent protests against old growth logging through road blockades that were slated to run June 13. Organizers of the Clear the Road campaign are gathering information to see if it is a viable option for their mission. An organizer Tamara Meggitt says anyone harmed by the disruptions taking place after Monday, June 13, is asked to document and submit information. "Are you a tradesperson who lost work? Were you unable to tend to your store? Did merchandise being delivered spoil or fail to reach its destination, causing your business a loss?" asks Meggitt in a press release. "If any of these things apply, we would like to hear from you." This follows the news that a logging protest group called Save Old Growth was set to be running blockades on Monday, June 13, to, as they say on their website, "disrupt business as usual." The group aligns themselves with the A22 Network, which they say is a nine country coalition that has a distinct policy demand from governments in each. The Canadian chapter's demand is that BC Premier Horgan pass legislation to immediately end all logging of old growth forests in the province. Save Old Growth has run blockades and other protests in cities across the province since January of this year. On the island their presence has been felt most in the south-central in Nanaimo with weekly blockades and occasionally in Langford delaying traffic heading up-island from Victoria. They have local chapters in Nanaimo, Victoria, and Vancouver that meet weekly. Most recently their supporters glued themselves to goalposts during the June 10 soccer match at BC Place between Canada and Caracao. They disrupted the game for a couple of minutes before play returned. June 13th has been marked on the organization's calendar for a while. On their website, they say that from June 13th on they are planning to occupy critical infrastructure "day after day until we get legislative change to ban all old-growth logging in BC." Meggitt says that Save Old Growth is purely a nuisance campaign. "British Columbia already has world-leading standards in place for protecting rare ecosystems," says Meggitt. "It isn't environmentalism to block roads and force hundreds of drivers to burn extra fuel idling in an artificial traffic jam. That's hypocrisy, and has a real impact on people's lives." She asks anyone stalled in traffic by a blockade to document the "harm they suffer" and share that with Clear The Road by email at drive@cleartheroad.ca. "Evidence of damages is necessary so we can work with a law firm to get a class-action lawsuit underway," says Meggitt. She hopes the protest will be a peaceful deterrent to protesters. "These blockaders state they wish to provoke and anger the public to create physical conflicts that are then filmed for viral videos. What a horribly misguided idea," says Meggitt. "We also hope a class-action suit can provide a peaceful release valve for the frustration caused to folks just going about their day." [GN] SPICE ALLIANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spice Alliance LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spice Alliance LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04913-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Spice Alliance -- https://thespicealliance.com/ -- is a creator of Small Batch, Organic Dry Rubs and Seasonings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com STEIFF NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steiff North America, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steiff North America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04911-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Steiff -- https://www.steiffusa.com/ -- is the world's premier manufacturer of high-end toys and collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-mc-13 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, grants Value Drug's Motion to Transfer Venue. I. Background On Aug. 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that in 2014, Takeda and three generic pharmaceutical companies (Par, Watson, and Amneal) conspired to reduce competition for Colcrys (a gout drug) by entering into agreements delaying the entry of competing generic drugs into the market even after Takeda's period of exclusivity expired on July 29, 2016. Value Drug brings claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of brand and generic Colcrys, including AG Colcrys. The amended complaint in the underlying Pennsylvania action asserts that Prasco, LLC dba Prasco Laboratories started selling AG Colcrys on Jan. 11, 2015. Notably, Prasco is a private pharmaceutical company headquartered in Mason, Ohio. Value Drug served a subpoena on Prasco on Sept. 13, 2021. Value Drug's subpoena seeks Prasco's colchicine transactional sales data. Despite extensive meet and confer efforts, Value Drug was unable to reach agreement with Prasco. After several meet and confer calls, the parties were unable to reach an agreement relating to the information requested by the subpoena. Thereafter, on April 4, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Value Drug Company filed the instant action asking the Court to compel Prasco Laboratories to produce transaction-level sales data for authorized generic ("AG") Colcrys, as requested by Request No. 11 in Value Drug's Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Sept. 13, 2021. That same day, it also filed a motion to transfer its motion to compel to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. II. Discussion The issue in the case is whether the Court should, within its discretion, transfer Value Drug's motion to compel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Value Drug, as the proponent of transfer, "bears the burden of showing that such [exceptional] circumstances are present." It argues, inter alia, that transfer is appropriate because the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a more efficient venue to adjudicate Value Drug's Motion to Compel against Prasco. Prasco opposes the motion, asserting that transfer should be denied because this dispute does not present the "exceptional circumstances" that Rule 45 requires. It contends that the dispute is not so intertwined with the issues in the EDPA Litigation as to require that court's participation. Moreover, as a local nonparty uninvolved in the underlying case, Prasco should not be required to defend in a distant venue. Prasco also raises concerns about the confidentiality of the documents sought. Contrary to Prasco's assertions, Judge Bowman finds that Value Drug has met its burden to prove that exceptional circumstances exist warranting transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As noted by Value Drug, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has experience with the facts of the complex underlying case. A Special Master has been appointed to resolve discovery disputes, and he has already evaluated the relevance of certain documents, ruling on one motion to compel. Furthermore, Value Drug is seeking the production of transaction-level sales data from Prasco that is relevant to Value Drug's class certification expert reports that are due on July 21, 2022. As such, Value Drug asserts exceptional circumstances warrant transfer because Prasco's transaction-level sales data are undisputedly relevant to these reports as they are relevant to, inter alia, damages, identifying class members, and other class certification issues. Moreover, judicial economy warrants transferring this matter to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because there "is a very real possibility that the Court's ruling could conflict with any ruling issued by" the Pennsylvania Court. The Pennsylvania court has knowledge of the underlying issues surrounding Value Drug's attempts to secure the records sought by its non-party subpoena. Accordingly, "judicial economy will be best served by having all of these disputes resolved by the same court." III. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Judge Bowman grants Value Drug's motion to transfer, and the matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for all further proceedings, including ruling on Value Drug's pending Motion to Compel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34wwn2fk from Leagle.com. TELADOC HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc") (NYSE: TDOC) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Teladoc, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/teladoc-health-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28396&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Teladoc includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) increased competition, among other factors, was negatively impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care businesses; (ii) accordingly, the growth of those businesses was less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result, Teladoc's revenue and adjusted EBITDA projections for FY 2022 were unrealistic; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Teladoc would be forced to recognize a significant non-cash goodwill impairment charge; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: August 5, 2022 Aggrieved Teladoc investors only have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] TP APPAREL: Faces Maddy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA MADDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TP Apparel, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04632-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website teepublic.com/ to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. TP Apparel LLC, doing buisness as TeePublic, provides e-commerce services. The Company offers t-shirts, hoodies, tank tops, sweatshirts, stickers, phone cases, mugs, notebooks, pillows, tote bags, tapestries, and magnets. TeePublic serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 Facsimile: (929) 333-7774 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com TWITTER INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Twitter is accused of peddling its users phone numbers and email addresses to advertisers in violation of the law. Plaintiff Lauren Price filed a proposed class action lawsuit May 31 in California federal court, nine days after Twitter reached a settlement of those allegations with the Federal Trade Commission worth $150 million. She is represented by Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group. Though the phone numbers and email addresses were collected "under the guise" they would be used for security-related reasons, Twitter instead used them to allow advertisers to target specific groups of users, the suit says. "Twitter's relationship with its users is governed by the Twitter Terms of Service and the Twitter Privacy Policy," the suit says. "The Twitter Privacy Policy repeatedly promises Plaintiff and Class members that Twitter respects their information and discloses such information only with users' consent." The suit makes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of California laws and unjust enrichment. "Defendant breached the implied contracts it made with Plaintiff and the Class by utilizing and profiting from their personal information via the marketing and advertising purposes the information was put to," the suit says. [GN] USAA GENERAL: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Berardi and Smith Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, ERNEST J. BERARDI, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA GENERAL INDEMINTY COMPANY. SAMANTHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA CASUALTY COMPANY, Civil Action Nos. 22-813, 22-832 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants Defendants USAA General Indemnity Co. and USAA Casualty Insurance Co.'s Motions to Dismiss. I. Introduction Defendants USAA General and USAA Casualty (collectively, the "USAA") have filed Motions to Dismiss in the case arising from a dispute over vehicle insurance. Plaintiff Ernest J. Berardi and Plaintiff Samantha Smith each bring a putative class action on behalf of USAA customers who were allegedly defrauded and charged wrongful premiums by USAA. USAA moves to dismiss all claims. Although Berardi and Smith have brought separate actions, the cases are virtually identical; the Defendant in each case is essentially the same, the Plaintiff in each case is represented by the same counsel, and the briefs contain the exact same arguments and assertions. Judge Baylson therefore discusses and decides the cases together. II. Background and Factual Allegations Ernest J. Berardi and Samantha Smith are Pennsylvania residents who purchased automobile insurance from, respectively, USAA General and USAA Casualty. The companies are both based in Texas and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of USAA. Berardi and Smith each own a single vehicle that is covered by the USAA insurance policy, and no one in either Berardi's or Smith's household owns any other vehicles or policies. In purchasing the USAA policies, Berardi and Smith each elected stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, for which they were each charged an additional premium. UM/UIM insurance is a form of coverage that comes into play when a tortfeasor injures an insured person and the tortfeasor's own insurance coverage is either nonexistent or insufficient to fully compensate the injured insured person. The injured insured person may then draw upon UM/UIM coverage provided by their own insurer. "Stacking" is the practice of allowing insurance coverage of individual vehicles to be combined to increase the total amount of coverage available to the insured; coverage for one vehicle can be "stacked" on the coverage for another vehicle. The Plaintiffs now bring suit against the Defendants, alleging that, as single-vehicle owners with no other household policies, they do not benefit from stacked UM/UIM coverage and therefore should not have to pay a premium for it. They allege that USAA knew or should have known at the time it issued the policies that Berardi and Smith were single-vehicle owners with no other policies in their households. USAA should have accordingly advised Berardi and Smith that they would not benefit from stacked UM/UIM coverage, avers the Plaintiff, but failed to do so. The Plaintiffs each bring their action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated USAA customers—single-vehicle owners with no other household policies -- who elected and paid for stacked UM/UIM coverage. They filed their suits in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and Defendants, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, removed both to federal court. The Plaintiffs bring the following Counts in each Complaint, some of which are styled as Counts but are actually requests for particular remedies: Count I: Declaratory relief; Count II: Return of premiums; Count III: Unjust enrichment; Count IV: Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73 P.S. Section 201-1, et seq.; Count V: Fraud; and Count VI: Injunctive relief. The Defendants seeks to dismiss both Complaints. The Plaintiffs filed Responses, and the Defendants filed Replies. The Court held oral argument on the Motions on May 25, 2022. The counsel was well-prepared and reiterated the legal arguments made in the briefs. The Plaintiffs' counsel helpfully clarified the scope of the Plaintiffs' sought-after relief, explaining that the Plaintiffs' requested declaratory and injunctive relief would not require the Court to rewrite vehicle insurance contracts but only to say whether those contracts actually provide stacking benefits. III. Discussion The Plaintiffs request that the Court issues a declaration stating that single-vehicle owners with no other household policies who purchased stacked UM/UIM coverage from USAA do not benefit from that coverage and that USAA is required to return to these customers the premiums they paid for stacked UM/UIM coverage. In the same vein, Count II of their Complaints requests that the Court orders USAA to return stacked UM/UIM coverage premiums paid by putative class members, and Count VI of the Plaintiffs' Complaints requests an injunction prohibiting USAA from charging premiums for stacked UM/UIM coverage in policies purchased by single-vehicle owners with no other household policies. First, Judge Baylson declines to adopt the Plaintiffs' expansive reading of Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, 957 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2008), which did not distinguish between "household" and "non-household" policies at all. The Plaintiffs have not cited, either in their briefs or at oral argument, any cases in the 14 years since Generette was decided that have interpreted Generette as the Plaintiffs do. In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's clear precedent, the Court must dismiss Counts I, II, and VI. Next, Judge Baylson concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. In the present case, each Plaintiff has clearly alleged that there is a contract -- the insurance policy at issue -- between the parties. The Plaintiffs' claims concern matters very much within the scope of the insurance policies; the basic premise of each Plaintiff's action is that they are not not benefitting from a form of coverage provided for in the policy and therefore should not have to pay a premium provided for in the policy. Judge Baylson also cannot agree that USAA made a false material representation by failing to adopt the Plaintiffs' novel interpretation of Generette and inform Berardi and Smith that -- contrary to the MVFRL -- their policies would not actually provide stacked coverage. "Each insured has the right and obligation to question his insurer at the time the insurance contract is entered into as to the type of coverage desired and the ramifications arising therefrom. Once the insurance contract takes effect, however, the insured must take responsibility for his policy." Judge Baylson will dismiss the Plaintiffs' fraud claims. Lastly, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the catchall provision. Judge Baylson finds that the Plaintiffs may receive less value from the stacked UM/UIM coverage they elected than if they owned multiple vehicles or possessed multiple household policies. However, "Pennsylvania courts have often stressed that the insured has both the capacity and the duty to inquire about the scope of insurance coverage, rather than rely on 'hand holding and substituted judgment.'" IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson grants the Defendants' Motions and dismisses the Plaintiffs' Complaints. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/nh7bbcw2 from Leagle.com. VERRICA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Verrica") (NASDAQ: VRCA) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Verrica, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28394&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Verrica includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract manufacturer produced a bulk solution for the Company's lead product candidate, VP-102; (2) these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its New Drug Application for VP-12 for molluscum; (3) the foregoing presented significant risks to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: August 5, 2022 Aggrieved Verrica investors only have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) securities between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops medications for viral skin diseases requiring medical intervention. What is this Case About: Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VRCA) Received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA relating to its New Drug Application for VP-102 Verrica has spent several years working to bring to market VP-102, the Company's investigational, proprietary, drug-device combination for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. However, several challenges have prevented this from happening. Verrica received its first Complete Response Letter (CRL) regarding the New Drug Application (NDA) in September 2021 due to deficiencies at a facility of Verrica's contract manufacturer. Verrica resubmitted the NDA for VP-102 in November 2021, claiming "[t]he resubmission addresses the successful resolution of inspection deficiencies" at the manufacturing facility. On May 24, 2022, Verrica received yet another CRL from the FDA related to its NDA for VP-102, citing "deficiencies identified during a general inspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, LLC (Sterling) the contract manufacturing organization (CMO) that manufacture's Verrica's bulk solution drug product." On this news, the Company's stock price fell 63.85%, to close at $2.01 per share on May 25, 2022. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for VP-102 and that these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its NDA for VP-102, which presented a significant risk to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval for VP-102. Next Steps: If you acquired your shares of Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VRCA) securities between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022, you have until August 5, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Contact us to learn more: Aaron Dumas (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Aaron Dumas Robbins LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Brito-Munoz's Amended Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FERNANDA BRITO-MUNOZ and TAMIKA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 1:21-CV-00903 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Walmart's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. I. Background The named Plaintiffs in the case are Fernanda Brito-Munoz and Tamika Williams. Plaintiff Brito-Munoz is a Pennsylvania resident who has a daughter who "has suffered skin irritation, dermatitis, and/or allergic skin reaction in the past." To care for her daughter, Brito-Munoz alleges that she regularly purchased Parent's Choice Baby Wipes and Parent's Choice diapers from Walmart. Brito-Munoz claims that these products were labeled as "hypoallergenic," which was "a significant reason for her purchase" due to her daughter's history of skin issues. Similarly, Plaintiff Williams is a resident of California who "has suffered skin irritation, eye irritation, dermatitis, and/or an allergic skin reaction in the past." As such, Williams claims that she purchased Parent's Choice Baby Lotion, Parent's Choice Baby Laundry Detergent, Parent's Choice Shea Butter Baby Wipes, Parent's Choice Maximum Strength Diaper Rash Ointment, Parent's Choice Wash & Shampoo, and Equate Personal Wipes from Walmart, all of which were labeled as "hypoallergenic." She alleges that this label was "a significant reason for her purchase." Both Plaintiffs assert that they purchased these products regularly. The Plaintiffs claim that contrary to the "hypoallergenic" labels on its products, Walmart's products contain "a significant array and substantial amount of known skin sensitizers (allergens), agents that cause serious skin damage, chemicals that cause serious eye damage lasting longer than 21 days, skin irritants, and eye irritants." Thus, thye allege that "Walmart's body care products were falsely and misleadingly marketed as 'hypoallergenic' (some of which were also falsely and misleadingly marketed as 'tear-free')" since "all of these products contain skin allergens in an amount known to cause an allergic reaction." Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that Walmart improperly labels the following products as hypoallergenic and/or "tear-free": 2-in-1 Baby Wash & Shampoo; 2-in-1 Cleanser; Antibacterial Hand Wipes; Anti-Wrinkle Cream; Baby Bath; Baby Laundry Detergent; Baby Lotion; Baby Oil Cream; Baby Powder; Baby Shampoo; Baby Sunscreen Lotion; Baby Wash & Shampoo; Baby Wipes; Bath for Nighttime/Nighttime Bath; Body Wash; Cleansing Towelettes; Daily Moisturizer; Day Cream; Diaper Rash Ointment; Diaper Rash Paste; Diaper Rash Relief; Facial Moisturizer; Facial Scrub; Facial Wipes; Feminine Wash; Feminine Wipes; Kids Sunscreen Lotion; Kids Sunscreen Stick; Lotion; Makeup Remover Towelettes; Moisturizing Lotion; Personal Wipes; Wash & Shampoo; and Wipes. The Plaintiffs assert that if they knew the products they were purchasing "were not hypoallergenic as promised, they would not have purchased these products," although Brito-Munoz states that she would purchase the products if "she had no other available options due to stock." They also claim that they "purchased, purchased more of, or paid more for, these products than they would have had [they] known that the products were not hypoallergenic, as promised." The Plaintiffs assert that "by deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of its products, Walmart is able to command a premium price, increasing consumers' willingness to pay and take away market share from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits." On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiffs filed a seven-count complaint on May 18, 2021, alleging claims for breach of express warranty; unjust enrichment; unfair and deceptive acts and practices under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; California's False Advertising Law; California's Unfair Competition Law; Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and breach of contract. Following a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint on Sept. 10, 2021, setting forth the same claims. On Sept. 24, 2021, Walmart filed the instant motion to dismiss the complaint, accompanied by a supporting brief. The Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on Oct. 15, 2021. Walmart timely filed a reply brief. Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition. II. Discussion The Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are purely economic. In essence, Judge Wilson gathers that the Plaintiffs are claiming economic injury under two theories: Benefit of the bargain and premium price. To remedy these alleged injuries, the Plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief as well as restitution. A. Monetary Damages In order to allege that the Plaintiffs have suffered an economic injury as a result of merely purchasing Walmart's products which they have consumed, the Plaintiffs "must allege facts that would permit a factfinder to determine that the economic benefit they received in purchasing the product was worth less than the economic benefit for which they bargained." It is insufficient "to simply allege that, although the Plaintiffs purchased hypoallergenic products at a given price, they later wished they had not done so." Judge Wilson holds that although the Plaintiffs characterize their purchases of Walmart brand hypoallergenic and/or tear-free products as economic injuries for which they are entitled to relief, they have failed to allege that the economic benefit they received from these products was anything less than the price they paid. In short, they received the benefit of their bargain and they have failed to allege facts that would indicate that they paid a premium for these hypoallergenic and tear-free products. B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Pursue Declaratory and Injunctive Relief The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief in this case. Therefore, in addition to Article III's standing requirements, they bear the burden of establishing that they are "'likely to suffer future injury' from the defendant's conduct." They Plaintiffs assert that they have alleged a future injury on behalf of the putative class because Plaintiff Brito-Munoz claims that she "may still purchase Walmart's products in the future if there are no other available options due to store stock." However, Judge Wilson finds that Brito-Munoz's contention that she may be harmed by a future purchase of Walmart brand hypoallergenic products, particularly a purchase contingent upon future stocking of Walmart's stores, "is far too speculative to justify injunctive relief." Brito-Munoz's vague allegation that "store stock" may impact her decision to repurchase Walmart brand hypoallergenic products is not the sort of likely future harm that Article III standing requires. Moreover, the law presumes that individuals act rationally in light of the information they possess. To suffer the same injury alleged in this case from a future purchase, Brito-Munoz would have to ignore her knowledge and experience regarding Walmart's labeling practices despite filing this lawsuit in which she has clearly identified her discontent. "In short, Brito-Munoz asks the Court to presume she will be fooled again and again." Judge Wilson declines to make this assumption, and will accordingly grant the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to establish a future injury that is not speculative or contingent. C. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Pursue Restitution In addition to seeking monetary damages, the Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of Walmart's revenues and profits based on a theory of unjust enrichment. Judge Wilson holds that the Plaintiffs' restitution claims are based on nothing more than mere conjecture. They plead no facts upon which a factfinder could conclude that Walmart has been able to sell more products due to the hypoallergenic label than it could have if it simply removed the hypoallergenic label. Judge Wilson therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief in the form of restitution. In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to establish standing as to any form of requested relief, she is compelled to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. III. Disposition For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wilson grants the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant. An appropriate order will be issued. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bw8rspr from Leagle.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 ***