/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 124 Headlines 20X HOSPITALITY: Lipstein Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination 3M COMPANY: Campbell Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Wis. to D.S.C. 67 LIQUORS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Contreras Suit ACACIA NETWORK: Faces Neor Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ALBERTSON'S LLC: Giulivo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZON.COM INC: PS5 Console "Defective," Castaneda Suit Alleges ANNIEGLASS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARBOR CONTRACT: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Aescht Suit Claims ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: May Face Similar Sexual Abuse Class Suits ARK NATURALS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARROW RELIANCE: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Bid Due June 22, 2023 B.A.S.S. LLC: Discloses Customers' Private Reading Info, Suit Says BALTIMORE, MD: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Fenner Class Suit BBT RETAIL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BEY-BERK INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Patties' Protein Quality Value BLINK HOLDINGS INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Appeals Judgment in Racial Discrimination Case BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued for Overstating Vehicles' Driving Range BOW USA LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BREUER PREMIUM: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York C AND W: Court Vacates Class Certification Deadlines in Ramirez CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Wage Disparity CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Seeks Extension to Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid CANADA: Court Certifies Indigenous Millennium Scoop Class Action CBL & ASSOCIATES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 18 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Icona Opportunity Suit Removed to D.N.J. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Summary Judgment in Gleason Suit Affirmed CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Vellon Sues Over Discriminatory Background Check CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Certiorari Petition Filed in Conner FLSA Suit COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Filing Continued to Jan. 9, 2023 CRST INT'L: Seeks to File 2nd Supplemental Sched Order DAILY HARVEST: May Face Class Action Over Illness Linked to Lentils DELTA AIRLINES: Scheduling Order Entered in Reep Class Suit DENTSPLY SIRONA: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action EGV COMPANIES: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-recorded Calls ENCORE SENIOR: Borden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Madlinger's Disclosure Claims EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Salas Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages FLUOR CORP: Settlement Hearing in Securities Suit Set on Nov. 7 FORD MOTOR: Weidman Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part FORSTER & GARBUS: Conditional Cert of Settlement Class Sought GOOD FAT: Ryan Files Suit Over Snack Products' False Ad GREEN ARROW: Faces Class Action Over High-Interest Loans HAMILTON, ON: Averts Class Action Over Red Hill Parkway Crashes HARMLESS HARVEST: Luis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought HUGO BOSS: Faces Tipoo Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Class Action Mulled Over Data Breach IMOBILE LLC: Samayoa Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime INOTIV INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit INTER-CON SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Hauser Claims INTERO REAL ESTATE: To Pay Each Claimant $350 in Telemarketing Suit IONQ INC: Pomerantz Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit IONQ INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline IT WORKS: Brooks' Bid for Prelim. Injunction & Class Cert. Denied JOANNA VARGAS: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., Greater Clark Says JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., North Adam Alleges JUUL LABS: City of Natchitoches Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Crisis JUUL LABS: Elk Grove Unified Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, North Central Claims JUUL LABS: Faces New Albany Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Faces Oak Hill Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Faces Salem Community Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Hamilton Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Ind. JUUL LABS: Kokomo School Sues Over E-Cigarette Youth Campaign JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarettes to Youth, Jennings County Alleges JUUL LABS: Pioneer Regional Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, White River Suit Alleges JUUL LABS: Randolph Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Rochester Community Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Muncie Community Says JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, North Harrison Says KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Castay Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Gothard Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices LEXINGTON LAW: Moore TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class MAJOR MODEL: Burgess Can't File Class Proof of Claim, Court Says MARCUS POLLARD: Fitzgerald Must file Class Cert Bid by July 15 MATCH GROUP: Modified Sealing Order Entered in Benouis MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal MEDZED LLC: Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California META PLATFORMS: Agrees to Pay $90-M to Users in Privacy Class Suit META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit for Mining Patient Healthcare Data META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set META PLATFORMS: Unlawfully Collects Patients' Data on Facebook MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Terminates Class Cert Bid in Stromberg MOUNT HOLLY, NC: Denial of Relief From Final Order Affirmed NEW PRIME: Amended Scheduling & Trial Order Entered in Nyachira NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Bid to Certify Putative Class Tossed NEW YORK: Kamisirides Estate Sues Over Hazardous Subway Entrances NEW YORK: Settles Public Assistance Class Action for $22 Million OLIN CORP: E.D. Missouri Dismisses Riley Suit Without Prejudice OMNI HOTELS: Aquino Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: Reaches $2.3M Settlement in Cannabis Suit PENNSYLVANIA: Must Face Class Action Over Handling Fees PPG INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rodriquez Says PROTECTIVE LIFE: Allen's Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part RECON OILFIELD: Klees Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ROBERT HAMMER: Consent Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Zelaya SALVATION ARMY: Must Respond to Plaintiffs' FAC by July 27, 2022 SECURITAS SECURITY: Pierre Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Costs SHELTER MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Medical Treatment Discounts SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 25 Deadline SPRINGBOARD MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 22, 2023 ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cody Civil Rights Suit SUMTER ORIGINAL: Faces Stokes Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages SURESCRIPTS LLC: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit T-MOBILE USA: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over 3G Networks' Shutdown TENNESSEE: Class Action Mulled Over Foster Care System TENNESSEE: Court Won't Amend Intervention Bid Denial in S.B. Suit TERRAFORM LABS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 19 Deadline TESLA INC: Class Settlement in Rasmussen Suit Has Court's Final OK TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeals Court Ruling in Diesel Filters Class Action TOYOTA MOTOR: Goussev Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. TWC PRODUCT: Hart, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class UKG INC: Fraga Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Personal Info UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Suit Over Student Loan Debts UPSTART HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Securities Suit VIATRIS INC: Settles EpiPen Antitrust Class Action for $264 Million VIKING RIVER: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Ruling on FAA Issue WALMART ASSOCIATES: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to July 15 WALMART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Garcia WATERLOO CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Zogopoulos Says WELLS FARGO: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $3.75 Million WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Settlement in Cleveland Suit Gets Final Nod XCEL ENERGY: Settles Suit Over Price-Fixing Claims for $2.5 Mil. YEXT INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of August 16 Deadline YOUNG NAILS: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 20X HOSPITALITY: Lipstein Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAN LIPSTEIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 20X HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a SPICY MOON, JUNE KWAN, in both her individual and professional capacities, JOANNA AVERY, in both her individual and professional capacities, and YIDI MAO a/k/a KENNY MAO, in both his individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04812 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his sex in violation of the NYSHRL, by, inter alia, denying him equal terms and conditions of employment because of his sex, terminating his employment, and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. Further, the Defendants have engaged in a common, willful, and deliberate policy and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated minimum wages, overtime and spread of hours compensation; have also engaged in a common, willful, and deliberate policy and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated minimum and overtime wages; and have also consistently failed to furnish Plaintiff and others similarly situated with Notices of Pay Rate and accurate wage statements, as required by law, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from January 5, 2021 until November 8, 2021 as Executive Head Chef. 20X HOSPITALITY LLC is a foreign limited liability corporation that operates as a restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Taylor J. Crabill, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ahartzband@faruqilaw.com tcrabill@faruqilaw.com 3M COMPANY: Campbell Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Wis. to D.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOAN CAMPBELL and RICHARD CAMPBELL, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KATY BREZINSKI; MIKE DESOTELL; CARRIE PLOTZ; BAILIE PLOTZ; DANIELLE NIEMOJUSKI; DAVE ROLAND; DONNA KIES; DUSTIN DREIFUERST; GERALD LOWIS; JAMES LEMAY; MARY LEMAY; KEN HAZEL; MARK MARINEAU; STEVEN REEK; CHRISTINA REEK; MIKE DESOTELL, as administrator of the estate of THERESA DESOTELL; THOMAS SHULTZ, individually and as administrator of the estate of WENDY SHULTZ; PAUL WOOD; and STEVE DIXON v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-00667, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 17, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01930-RMG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, trespass, abnormally dangerous activity and absolute and strict liability, private nuisance, and failure to warn by manufacturing and marketing AFFF products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which caused injury to the Plaintiffs. The 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods, headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Susan E. Lovern, Esq. Derek J. Waterstreet, Esq. VON BRIESEN &ROPER, S.C. 411 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 287-1519 Facsimile: (414) 238-6434 E-mail: susan.lovern@vonbriesen.com derek.waterstreet@vonbriesen.com - and – Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com 67 LIQUORS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Contreras Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YENSY CONTRERAS, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated. v. THE 67 LIQUORS SHOP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00291-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Aug. 31,2022 Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than: -- All fact discovery is to be Nov. 14,2022 completed no later than: -- Initial request for production Aug. 31,2021 of documents shall be served by: -- All discovery shall be completed Jan. 5, 2023 no later than: -- The Court will conduct a Jan. 13, 2023 telephonic post-discovery conference on: A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QLR0gt at no extra charge.[CC] ACACIA NETWORK: Faces Neor Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE WALLACE on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04814 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime due to time shaving; unpaid wages, including overtime due to detrimental rounding; unpaid spread of hours premiums; compensation for late payment of wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Neor was hired by the Defendants to work as a social worker for Defendants' converted shelter located in Bronx, New York, in January 2019 until his termination on May 14, 2020. Plaintiff Wallance was hired by the Defendants to work as a housing specialist for Defendants' converted shelter located in Brooklyn, New York from March 21, 2018, until his termination on December 28, 2021. The Defendants collectively own and operate "Acacia Network," an organization that subleases hotels and accommodations to the government as housing and assistance centers for the homeless in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ALBERTSON'S LLC: Giulivo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL GIULIVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV-0146, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04163 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by conducting background checks and consumer reports to its employees and job applicants without proper authorization and proper disclosures. Albertson's LLC is an American grocery company headquartered in Boise, Idaho. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Ray E. Boggess, Esq. Jessica A. Vidal, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 E-mail: jkb@paynefears.com reb@paynefears.com jav@paynefears.com AMAZON.COM INC: PS5 Console "Defective," Castaneda Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- EVAN CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03187 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and other consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of PS5 video game console. The Defendant represents on its e-commerce website that the PS5 is a next generation gaming console which functions with exceedingly fast loading times for games, deep gamer immersion, and the compatibility to play the new generation of PlayStation video games (PS5 Games). However, the PS5 does not function as represented and is defective by design. The console defect materially interferes with the user's gameplay and enjoyment of the PS5. Oftentimes, when the defect causes the PS5 to power down or crash, users lose game progress due to the sudden nature of the defect. As a result of the Defendant's actions, PS5 owners have suffered damages for loss of use of their PS5, and are forced to either pay to send their PS5 in for repair or attempt to fix the problem themselves, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com ANNIEGLASS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AnnieGlass, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AnnieGlass, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05154 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AnnieGlass, Inc. -- https://annieglass.com/ -- offers award winning glass tableware, sculpture and home decor sustainably handcrafted on the Monterey Bay, California.[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 ARBOR CONTRACT: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Aescht Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MARK AESCHT and ANA BARRIENTOS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARBOR CONTRACT CARPET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01383 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages, penalties, attorney fees and other relief from the Defendant as a result of its alleged violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs, along with their spouse, were covered under the Defendant's group health plan while employed by the Defendant. Upon their resignation from their employment with the Defendant on or about February 15, 2022, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide them with timely notice of their COBRA rights to continuing insurance coverage. Plaintiff Aescht learned for the first time that his insurance was canceled when his wife went to fill her prescriptions on or about May 2, 2022, Plaintiff Barrientos learned she was without insurance coverage when her primary care physician told her in April 2022. As a result of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiffs have suffered medical bills, physical pain and suffering and mental anguish and embarrassment. Thus, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs for penalties of $110 per day per participant plus liquidated damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, says the suit. Arbor Contract Carpet, Inc. operates a carpet installation business in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Tel: (352) 244-2069 Fax: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvillleemploymentlaw.com ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: May Face Similar Sexual Abuse Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Stockland of The Catholic Register reports that in the past two months, courts gave the go-ahead for class-action lawsuits involving 100 plaintiffs alleging sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Quebec and the Diocese of St. Hyacinthe near Montreal. A co-counsel in the victims' suit that bankrupted the Archdiocese of St. John's says it's reasonable to expect it might spark similar class action suits against the Church across Quebec. "It could be a signal to other counsel in Quebec to have a look at other potential cases to see if they're worth proceeding with," said Eugene Meehan. But Meehan, of Ottawa-based Supreme Advocacy law firm, also cautions the Quebec court approvals are only a first step in what could be a protracted process and won't necessarily lead to the financial chaos that engulfed Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador. Meehan said the June 9 authorization by a Superior Court judge in the St. Hyacinthe case does "cast a wide net" in allowing for claims dating back to the 1940s. "It's one of the wider ones that I've seen but this authorization is just the beginning of the road," said Meehan. "There could well be a trial where the defense gets to raise all kinds of arguments as in any type of litigation. Settlement negotiations could happen as well." Meehan and fellow lawyer Geoff Budden, acting for victims of Mount Cashel, successfully argued the case in a landmark 2020 ruling from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, that the Archdiocese of St. John's had a "vicarious liability" for the horrific abuse suffered by boys at the orphanage. The decision built on an earlier Supreme Court of Canada ruling that parties with "deeper pockets" could be compelled to pay for past wrongs. Meehan noted that the overturning of a lower court ruling against the Mount Cashel plaintiffs turned on the single issue of vicarious liability. Although the orphanage was run by the Christian Brothers, the archdiocese "embedded" a monsignor at the institution and thus shared responsibility for a facility it did not technically control. "At trial, the plaintiffs lost on all counts and at the appeal court, they lost on all counts except one, and that was vicarious liability. We only had to win on one count," he said. Meehan stressed that while the Newfoundland and Labrador decision is not binding outside the province, it could have substantial strategic legal influence in Quebec and elsewhere. He added that is why both the Quebec and St. Hyacinthe dioceses would be fully justified in fighting the newly authorized class-action suits as far as necessary through the legal system. "It's entirely appropriate for any defendant to fully and actively defend the case on the basis that there is no liability. Like any defendant, the Church should not pay on the basis of ability to pay, but on the basis of liability. There are many steps before liability is proven." On June 10, a day after the St. Hyacinthe class action was authorized, eight plaintiffs had already stepped forward to seek collective redress for abuse they allege suffering on Church properties under the control of the diocese. In three cases, those making the allegations did not know the names of their abusers. The diocese itself has refused comment on the approval by Judge Chantal Corriveau. Less than a month earlier, 92 victims identified 80 alleged abusers, a majority of them priests, in the Archdiocese of Quebec, which is home ground for the Catholic Primate of Canada, Cardinal Gérald Cyprien Lacroix. The Quebec law firm of Arsenault Dufresne Wee is representing plaintiffs in both cases, though Meehan cautioned that doesn't necessarily mean the firm is actively seeking complainants or pursuing class-action suits throughout Quebec. [GN] ARK NATURALS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ark Naturals Company. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ark Naturals Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05144 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ark Naturals -- https://www.arknaturals.com/ -- is a company that sells natural products for pets, including joint, dental, lifestyle, remedy and overall wellness 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 ARROW RELIANCE: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrow Reliance Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrow Reliance Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05098 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Arrow Reliance Inc. doing business as Darwin's Natural Pet Products -- https://www.darwinspet.com/ -- makes healthy pet food delivery easy.[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 ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Bid Due June 22, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYAM KHOSHCHIN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00916-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery in Phase I shall be February 21, 2023 limited to facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action and shall be completed by: -- All counsel are to designate in April 24, 2023 writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at class certification not later than: -- The Motion for Class Certification June 22, 2023 shall be filed by: A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QJdmzj at no extra charge.[CC] B.A.S.S. LLC: Discloses Customers' Private Reading Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TODD OSBORN and CLARK LANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. B.A.S.S., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00520 (W.D. Mich., June 8, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff and similarly situated customers' Private Reading Information in violation of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about Plaintiffs' Bassmaster magazine subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed their information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing -- rather than selling -- its customers' Private Reading Information, B.A.S.S. is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties, says the suit. B.A.S.S., LLC is a data aggregation company with headquarters and principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com BALTIMORE, MD: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Fenner Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES FENNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al., Defendants, Case No. DLB-21-2646 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the motions to dismiss filed by the City Defendants, Workday, Inc., and the City Union of Baltimore, Local 800, AFT, AFL-CIO. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Charles Fenner, Beverly Stevenson, Tijuana McKoy, and Sheena Scott, proceeding pro se and seeking to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, filed suit against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD"), the Baltimore City Department of Finance, (collectively, the "City defendants"), Workday, and the Union. The case arises out of the City's transition to Workday, a payroll management service, and the problems that resulted. The Plaintiffs claim violations of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., as well as common law negligence and violations of unspecified state and local laws. They allege the Workday system has resulted in erroneous, late, and missed payroll payments. They also allege that the defendants refused to bargain in good faith; failed to comply with overtime, record keeping, and other provisions of the FLSA; and were negligent towards them. The City Defendants, Workday, and the Union have separately moved to dismiss. The motions are fully briefed. No hearing is necessary. II. Background The Plaintiffs are entitled to relief and damages sought by the Defendants based on the Defendants' violating the FLSA and the NLRA. The Defendants did cause harm and violate employees' rights with respect to overtime pay, record keeping and other terms that cover employees in Federal, Local, and State governments for non-exempt employees. They did and continue to violate not only the (FLSA) the (NLRA) but also other federal, state and local labor laws. The Defendants did cause harm and violate the (NLRA) by refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith concerning representation in bringing and enforcing a bargaining agreement. Defendant Workday is a payroll management system that since its inception has performed erroneous calculations resulting in the Plaintiffs not receiving proper pay, and continues to not calculate payroll properly causing plaintiff to be under paid, receive no pay, be overpaid or not properly compensated according to the department and specific pay guidelines according to contract. Many Plaintiffs are still awaiting pay from 9 months ago, in some form or fashion. Defendant Dept. of Finance oversees the Workday systems and is responsible for maintenance and corrective action if the system is not performing correctly. The Defendants, its agents, or representatives were negligent in their duty of care. The Defendants did cause harm to the Plaintiff by violation of (NLRA) and the (FLSA). They also caused emotional stress, and mental stress by refusing to properly compensate, bargain in good faith and otherwise correct issues that the Plaintiffs brought to managers and those in positions of authority who could have solved the issues that plaintiff alleges were in violation of their rights. The Defendants refused to participate in Dept. of Labor investigation concerning violations of acts. They primary place of business is Baltimore City. The Plaintiffs do not make any allegations regarding their relationships with any of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed suit on Oct. 15, 2021. After the Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20 and 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition on March 2. Judge Boardman considers the opposition even though only Fenner signed it, and even though it was filed approximately two weeks after the date it was due (notice letters dated January 20 and 25 indicating any opposition should be filed within 28 days of the date of the letters). However, she does not consider the additional factual allegations in the opposition because the Plaintiffs may not amend their complaint in an opposition brief. Judge Boardman uses the additional factual proffers in the opposition only to interpret and clarify the allegations in the complaint, not to supplement them. III. Discussion Workday, the Union, and the City Defendants each separately move to dismiss the claims against them. Where the parties' arguments overlap, Judge Boardman addresses them together. As an initial matter, it is worth clarifying which of the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs. The complaint does not expressly state this information, but context and liberal interpretation provide an answer. The Plaintiffs allege "Workday is a payroll management system." Thus, Workday did not employ any of the Plaintiffs itself; rather, it provided a service to the Plaintiffs' employers. The complaint further alleges "Defendant Dept of Finance oversees the Workday systems." From this, Judge Boardman infers that the Baltimore City Department of Finance also did not employ the Plaintiffs. Finally, though the complaint does not devote any special attention to the Union, the Plaintiffs' opposition indicates they are "union members of the City Union of Baltimore and are not employees." Thus, the City and BPD appear to be Plaintiffs' employers. Nothing in the Plaintiffs' opposition indicates otherwise. A. The Baltimore City Department of Finance Judge Boardman holds that the Baltimore City Department of Finance is not a legal entity that can sue or be sued. The Baltimore City Charter creates a municipal corporation known as the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Balt. City Charter, Art. 1, Section 1 (2022), as well as the Department of Finance, id. Art VII, Section 5. The former "may sue or be sued." The latter is given no such capacity by the charter. "Absent a statutory or constitutional provision creating a government agency, an 'office' or 'department' bears no unique legal identity, and thus, it cannot be sued under Maryland law." Accordingly, all claims against the Baltimore City Department of Finance are dismissed. B. The NLRA Claims The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the NLRA "by refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith concerning representation in bringing and enforcing a bargaining agreement." "In the NLRA, Congress established a 'comprehensive amalgam of substantive law and regulatory arrangements to govern labor-management relations affecting interstate commerce.'" The complaint does not specify what provision or provisions of the NLRA the Plaintiffs base their claims upon. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs indicate they intended to plead a claim under the NLRA against the Union, and they refer to the Union's "duty of fair representation." They also quote Section 8(b) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Section 158(b). Judge Boardman holds that the City and BPD are not "employers" as defined by the NLRA, the Plaintiffs are not "employees" within the meaning of the statute, and the Union is not a covered "labor organization" subject to the duty of fair representation under the NLRA. The Court has previously dismissed NLRA fair representation claims in similar circumstances. The NLRA fair representation claim against the City Union of Baltimore is dismissed. It is unclear from the Plaintiffs' complaint whether they intended to also plead NLRA claims against Workday, the City, and/or BPD. If they did, these claims fair no better, Judge Boardman finds. The Plaintiffs do not allege Workday is their employer, and the City and BPD are not "employers" under the NRLA because the statute's definition of "employer" excludes "any State or political subdivision thereof." It follows that the NLRA does not cover these defendants in the case. Any claims under the NRLA against Workday, the City, and BPD are dismissed C. The FLSA Claims The Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA. They allege the Defendants "did cause harm and violate employees' rights with respect to overtime pay, record keeping and other terms that cover employees." Specifically, they allege errors in the Workday payroll management system resulted "in the Plaintiffs not receiving proper pay, and the system continues to not calculate payroll properly causing the Plaintiff to be under paid, receive no pay, be overpaid or not properly compensated according to the department and specific pay guidelines according to contract." Many employees "are still awaiting pay from 9 months ago, in some form or fashion." The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims fail for three reasons, Judge Boardman opines. First, to the extent the Plaintiffs bring FLSA claims against Workday or the Union, those claims are dismissed because the Plaintiffs do not allege either entity is or was their employer. Second, any claims relating to record keeping are not cognizable because the FLSA does not provide a private cause of action to enforce its record keeping provisions. Finally, the Plaintiffs' conclusory and vague allegations that the City and BPD failed to pay minimum and overtime wages do not meet the pleading standard set by Rule 8. The FLSA claims are dismissed. D. State Law Claims The complaint refers briefly to negligence and violations of other state and local laws. A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." Having dismissed the Plaintiffs' federal claims, Judge Boardman declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and any violations of state or local laws are dismissed. IV. Conclusion Judge Boardman concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to plead cognizable federal claims. Their NRLA, FLSA, and pendant state law claims are dismissed. The claims against the Baltimore City Department of Finance, the NRLA claims, the FLSA claims against Workday and the Union, and the FLSA claims regarding record keeping violations are dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxb52vf from Leagle.com. BBT RETAIL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBT Retail, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BBT Retail, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03614 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BBT Retail, Inc. offers customized tanning service in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BEY-BERK INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bey-Berk International. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bey-Berk International, Case No. 1:22-cv-05153 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bey-Berk International -- https://bey-berk.com/ -- is an import and export company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Patties' Protein Quality Value ------------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a San Diego woman is suing a company that makes plant-based burger patties, claiming they don't contain as much protein as advertised. Mary Yoon filed a class action against Beyond Meat June 10 in San Diego federal court. She is represented by lawyers at Bursor & Fisher who took issue without labels that said the patties have 20 grams of plant protein per serving and a daily protein value of 40%. They actually have 18 grams of protein, the suit says. "Ms. Yoon would not have purchased the patties if she had known at the time the labeling was false," the suit says. "Ms. Yoon overpaid for the products as a result of the false labeling." The case, which can be read here, goes on to explain the lawyers' methodology for determining the patties have two less grams of protein than advertised. The company didn't take into account "protein quality value" or "protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score," the suit says. [GN] BLINK HOLDINGS INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blink Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03616 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blink Holdings, Inc., doing business as Blink Fitness -- https://www.blinkfitness.com/ -- offers an affordable gym membership with tons of gym equipment, certified personal training programs, and a free 30-minute start-up session.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Appeals Judgment in Racial Discrimination Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Nafeesa Syeed, et al., files an appeal from a court judgment entered against her in the lawsuit entitled NAFEESA SYEED, and similarly situated employees v. BLOOMBERG L.P., MATHEW WINLKER JOHN MICKLETHWAIT, MARTY SCHENKER, RETO GREGORI and "JOHN DOES" 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-07464, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 11, 2020. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and money damages to remedy alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and race in the terms, conditions and privileges of employment; harassment; hostile work environment; and failure to promote under the New York Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff contends that the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment and those female employees similarly situated with the Defendant were adversely affected because of their sex and race. She adds that Bloomberg created a blatantly hostile work environment toward minority women, willfully refused to remedy discrimination, failed to promote them by denying them equal terms and conditions of employment and ultimately caused her constructive discharge in violation of State and City anti-discrimination remedial statutes. On April 12, 2022, Judge Gregory H. Woods held a conference to discuss Plaintiffs' motion for final judgment on Plaintiff Nafeesa Syeed's claims pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons articulated on the record during that conference, Plaintiffs' motion was granted. Judge Woods instructed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion for Judgment filed by Nafeesa Syeed and enter final judgment against only Ms. Syeed. The remaining claims by Ms. Ndugga will proceed, and the case should not be closed, Judge Woods added. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment in favor of Bloomberg L.P., John Does 1-10, John Micklethwait, Marty Schenker, Matthew Winkler, Reto Gregori against Nafeesa Syeed on May 10, 2022. The Plaintiffs seek a review of this Judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 22-1251, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 8, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NAFEESA SYEED, and similarly situated employees, are represented by: Donna H. Clancy, Esq. THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C. 40 Wall Street, 61st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 747-1744 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued for Overstating Vehicles' Driving Range ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges BMW of North America has overstated the range of certain model year i3 electric and hybrid vehicles. More specifically, the 54-page case out of New Jersey alleges BMW has materially misrepresented the range of 2014-2018 model year i3, i3s and i3 REx vehicles when they're driven in cold weather conditions, regardless of whether the car is in battery-only or gas-engine range extender mode. Per the suit, BMW represented in promotional advertising that the mileage range for the i3 vehicles at issue, i.e. the "class vehicles," operating solely on the electric motor, was 81 miles. The touted range for an affected i3 equipped with an optional gasoline range extender engine was 150 miles, the lawsuit adds. According to the complaint, these ranges are "far beyond" what the BMW i3 models at issue can actually provide in cold weather. The plaintiff, a Wanaque, New Jersey resident, says that although the window sticker for his 2015 i3 REx indicated that the vehicle had a range of 72 miles on its electric motor, he was only able to obtain a range of 39 miles on a full charge during the winter months. "Nowhere in Defendants' advertising and/or marketing materials are the adverse effects of cold weather on vehicle range discussed," the suit says. The lawsuit alleges BMW knew that cold ambient temperatures would diminish the performance of the i3 vehicles and cause significantly decreased battery driving and increased fuel consumption yet concealed this from buyers and lessees. According to the complaint, winter range loss for electric and hybrid vehicles can manifest due to chemical and physical reactions in a battery occurring more slowly in cold temperatures, reducing the battery's output. Additionally, in cold weather, an electric vehicle's engine heat is rerouted to warm the battery, meaning that cabin heating requires pulling energy from the battery, further reducing its output, the suit relays. Per the case, the diminished range of the plaintiff's i3 REx has forced the man to use his vehicle "only half as much as he had intended" when he bought the car. Moreover, the plaintiff has also had to spend an additional $100 on gas every month to power his vehicle's range extending engine, the suit says. The case mentions that the American Automobile Association (AAA) tested the range effects of 20 degree-Fahrenheit weather on several popular electric vehicle models, including the BMW i3, and found that temperature alone could reduce range by 10 to 12 percent, while the use of climate control inside the vehicle could amplify that loss to 40 percent. According to the lawsuit, the i3's 20 percent decline in range at 20 degrees Fahrenheit "accounts for the worst performance among the [electric vehicles] that AAA tested." The lawsuit looks to represent all current and former owners and lessees of any 2014-2018 model year BMW i3 vehicle in the U.S. who sustained monetary loss and/or diminution of vehicle value as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. [GN] BOW USA LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bow USA, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bow USA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05147 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BOW USA is global player in lifestyle consumer products, operating worldwide in the design and wearable markets with its 2 brands: MyKronoz and Lexon.[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 BREUER PREMIUM: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breuer Premium Pet Food Company, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Breuer Premium Pet Food Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05097 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Breuer Premium Pet Food Company Inc., which does business as Spot & Tango -- https://spotandtango.com/ -- is an innovative pet health & wellness brand dedicated to providing dogs with fresh, human grade meals.[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 C AND W: Court Vacates Class Certification Deadlines in Ramirez --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ruth Ramirez v. C and W Facility Services Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11319-JVS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order That the following class certification deadlines are vacated: 1. Initial disclosures of Experts: October 4, 2022 2. Rebuttal disclosures: October 25, 2022 3. Non-Expert Discovery cut-off: November 8, 2022 4. Expert Discovery cut-off: November 8, 2022 5. The Plaintiff's deadline to November 8, 2022 file a Motion for Class Certification: 6. The Defendant's deadline to December 8, 2022 file an Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: 7. The Plaintiff’s deadline to December 22, 2022 file a Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: 8. Deadline to file Motions in January 9, 2023 Limine: 9. Deadline to file Pre-Trial January 31, 2023 Documents: 10. Final Pre-Trial Conference: February 6, 2023 11. Deadline to file Fact and February 14, 2023 Conclusions of Law: 12. Jury Trial: February 21, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QHOd8d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 - and - Johnathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 The Defendant is represented by: John R. Giovannone, Esq. Corey J. Cabral, Esq. Allison Chua, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Wage Disparity ------------------------------------------------------------- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, (MWA) -- a law firm specializing in representing clients nationwide in Employment Law cases, Racial & Economic Justice matters, and Class Actions -- was scheduled to hold a press conference to discuss a new class action lawsuit it would be filing the morning of June 22, 2022 against California State University (CSU) on behalf of women and people of color who have been underpaid in comparison to their male or white counterparts. The press conference will be held June 22, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. PST at 3281 E Guasti Rd #100, Ontario, CA 91761. A study released in May 2022 by the California State University Employees Union revealed a major wage disparity among CSU employees. According to the study, white women were paid roughly five percent less than white men, POC men made about three percent less, and POC women were harmed the most with a staggering seven percent disparity when compared to white men. This study was partially built using findings from a previous report compiled by Mercer, a consulting firm who worked with the state to complete the study. Mercer's report determined CSU did not have a consistent procedure regarding the awarding of promotions and raises, leaving these decisions entirely up to supervisors with biases. In Mercer's report, the firm recommended a massive $287 million to correct salaries. Current legislative budgets have set aside $100 million for a salary study and only $100 million to increase salaries. MWA Partner and Leader of the Racial & Economic Justice Practice Group Joseph L. Richardson and the class action representative was expected to speak at the press conference, outlining the allegedly unfair pay structure that affects CSU employees who are women or people of color, especially Black and Latino employees. "At MWA, we've just celebrated the 'official' end to the shameful history of slavery in our country on Juneteenth. But there is clearly still so much work to be done. This study has revealed facts, not conjectures," remarks Richardson, "It's finally proven what so many have always claimed and fought against: discriminatory practices are alive and well at CSU. MWA intends to continue the fight for true equality, and we will not stop until we've reached that goal." About McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP: McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP has a deep history of success for its clients, including a $203 million verdict against Wells Fargo Bank, recovery of over $1 billion for its clients, and over 100 contingency cases with recovery of $1 million or more. MWA maintains California offices in Ontario, San Bernardino, Palm Desert, and Irvine and supports its national practice with offices in Illinois and New Jersey. For over 30 years, MWA has successfully represented clients involved in general complex and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury and class action matters. Visit mccunewright.com for more information. [GN] CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Seeks Extension to Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY HEITZMAN v. CALVERT'S EXPRESS AUTO SERVICE & TIRE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02001-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension of time until July 1, 2022, to file its memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. In support of this unopposed motion. This is a putative collective action under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional Certification of a collective action under the FLSA on June 10, 2022. The Defendant's response to that motion is due to be filed on or before June 24, 2022. By this motion, the Defendant seeks a one-week extension of time until July 1, 2022, to file that response. This motion is not made for any improper purpose, but solely to allow counsel for Defendant sufficient time to prepare the response to the motion that includes voluminous supporting materials. The requested extension is necessitated by the press of other business that prevents counsel from meeting the current deadline, including numerous previously scheduled depositions and briefing deadlines in other cases. Calvert's is an auto repair center that performs tire and wheel services including oil change, repair and maintenance. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OBFVNk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas J. Porto, Esq. THE PORTO LAW FIRM 1616 West 45th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Telephone: (816) 463-2311 Facsimile: (816) 463-9567 E-mail: nporto@portolaw.com - and - Stephen J. Moore, Esq. KRIGEL AND KRIGEL, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 756-5800 Facsimile: (816) 756-1999 E-mail: sjmoore@krigelandkrigel.com CANADA: Court Certifies Indigenous Millennium Scoop Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy Battista LLP on June 20 disclosed that the Federal Court of Canada has issued a landmark decision, certifying a class action brought against the federal government on behalf of off-reserve Indigenous children and families subjected to the Millennium Scoop and the enormous harms of the broken child welfare system. Canada is opposing this class action, just as it opposed the human rights complaint filed in 2007. The human rights complaint was substantiated in 2016 when the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Canada was discriminating against on-reserve First Nation children through discriminatory funding practices. Canada chose not to comply with the CHRT order, resulting in 21 non-compliance and procedural orders and three Federal Court orders against Canada since 2016. Late last year, Canada finally agreed to negotiate an agreement to end its discrimination against children living on-reserve. Those negotiations resulted in a $40 billion Agreement in Principle finalized on December 31, 2021. Canada could choose to negotiate an agreement to address the ongoing discrimination against First Nation children living off-reserve. Instead, Canada is opposing the current class action. "The Federal Court's decision is historic and signals an important shift in the law," said Angela Bespflug, one of the lawyers representing the class. "Despite Canada's constitutional responsibility for all Indigenous people, Canada has repeatedly failed to take steps to protect the Indigenous identity of off-reserve children who were put into care. The Court's decision signals that Canada may finally be held to account for that. But we still have a long way to go." Added Bespflug: "It is fundamentally wrong that Canada has agreed to compensate on-reserve children while leaving off-reserve children out in the cold." "Although we are in an era of reconciliation, I'm not surprised that Canada has opposed the claim. Canada has a long record of fighting our children in court," states Mary Teegee of Takla Nation, Chair of the Indigenous Child and Family Services Directors Forum (ICFSD), First Nation Child and Family Caring Society (the Caring Society) Board Representative and BC Representative on the National Advisory Committee for First Nation Child and Family Services Reform (NAC). Due to the atrocities of the residential school system and federal policies that perpetuated "cultural genocide" (TRC Final Report), Indigenous children are vastly overrepresented in the child welfare system. Indigenous children represent approximately 8% of all children in Canada yet make up approximately 50% of children in government care. In some provinces, this number is as high as 90%. The vast majority of Indigenous children apprehended and placed into government care are off-reserve Indigenous children. "Why has Canada agreed to end discrimination for on-reserve children subjected to the child welfare system but turned its back on off-reserve Indigenous children?" asked Cheyenne Stonechild, the lead representative plaintiff in the class action. "Why do we have to fight Canada in court for something it already has acknowledged as unjust? Am I less Indigenous simply because I lived off-reserve with my mother, whom I was separated from as a child?" When she was eight years old, Ms. Stonechild was removed from the care of her mother, who herself had been adopted into a non-Indigenous household as part of the infamous "Sixties Scoop" and whose own mother was a survivor of the Residential School system in Saskatchewan. Ms. Stonechild spent her childhood moving through at least 15 different foster homes and group homes. She was completely isolated from her community and identity as a Cree woman, and it was solely through her own initiative that she began reconnecting with her family and community, Muscowpetung First Nation. "My heart goes out to Ms. Stonechild and all those hurt by the inter-generational trauma of the residential schools. Sadly, her story is not the exception but the norm for our children when they are removed from their families," said Mary Teegee. "There are three times as many children in state care today as there were at the height of Residential Schools," notes Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. "Canada has apologized for Residential Schools, but it has continued the same policies under a different name. The best apology is changed behaviour and it is time for all levels of government to end their discriminatory conduct," said Blackstock. "We call on Canada to stop fighting off-reserve Indigenous children in court, and to step up to the plate and lead, and to finally bring about the changes that are needed to fix this deeply broken system," said Blackstock. For a copy of the decision -- Cheyenne Pama Mukos Stonechild, Lori-Lynn David, and Steven Hicks v. HMTQ, 2022 FC 914 -- or for more information, please contact Janelle O'Connor, Class Counsel, at oconnor@murphybattista.com (Mobile 778.892.5515). A press conference to discuss the decision and the litigation was scheduled to be held on Monday, June 20, 2022 at 9:30am PDT at the offices of Gowling WLG LLP in downtown Vancouver, located at #2300, 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC. Press are welcome to arrive at 9:00am to set-up. [GN] CBL & ASSOCIATES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-00181-JRG-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Greer entered an order granting the parties motion to extend the due date of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and amending scheduling order as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class August 18, 2022 certification will be filed by: b. The Defendants' opposition to October 28, 2022 class certification will be filed by: with depositions of class September 30, 2022 representatives to be completed no later than: c. The Plaintiffs' reply in support December 12, 2022 of their motion for class certification will be filed by: With depositions of Defendants' December 2, 2022 expert(s) to be completed no later than: CBL Properties is an American real estate investment trust that invests in shopping centers, primarily in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. The company is organized in Delaware with its headquarters in Chattanooga, Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Njmtns at no extra charge.[CC] CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Icona Opportunity Suit Removed to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ICONA OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS 1, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICIES B1263EW0025419, B1263EW0080819, and VPC-CN-0001842-01, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, HDI GLOBAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INDEPENDENT SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE CO., COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, BRIT GLOBAL SPECIALTY USA, LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE, Case No. CPM-L-000078-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 17, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04140-KMW-EAP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action to seek insurance coverage for, among other things, alleged business interruption related to the COVID-19 pandemic under a program of commercial property insurance collectively issued by the Defendants and purchased by Hospitality Risk Management Association, an association of affiliated hospitality companies or corporations. Icona Opportunities Partners 1, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 2501 Seaport Drive, Suite 400, Chester, Pennsylvania. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business located at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 200, Roswell, Georgia. HDI Global Insurance Company is an insurance company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company is an insurance company, with a principal place of business located at 161 North Clark Street, 48th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company is an insurance company, with a principal place of business located at 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, Delaware. Allied World Assurance Co. is an insurance company, with a principal place of business located at 199 Water Street, New York, New York. Colony Insurance Company is an insurance company, with a principal place of business at 8720 Stony Point Parkway Suite 400, Richmond, Virginia. Brit Global Specialty USA is an insurance company operating in London, England. Landmark American Insurance Company is an insurance company, with a principal place of business located at 945 E. Paces Ferry Road NE, Suite 1800, Atlanta, Georgia. Arch Specialty Insurance is an insurance company, with a principal place of business at Harborside 3, 210 Hudson Street, Suite 300, Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher S. Myles, Esq. FIELDS HOWELL LLP 301 S. State Street, Suite N200 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (267) 214-7737 Facsimile: (404) 214-1251 E-mail: cmyles@fieldshowell.com CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Summary Judgment in Gleason Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW GLEASON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a North Carolina Hospital Authority, d/b/a Atrium Health; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. COA21-501 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirms: (a) the trial court's Dec. 3, 2020 order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and (b) the trial court's May 25, 2021 order (i) denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment, and (ii) granting summary judgment to Defendant Atrium. I. Introduction Plaintiff Gleason, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, appeals from the trial court's 3 December 2020 order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the trial court's 25 May 2021 order denying plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendant Atrium. The Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant Atrium on the grounds that Defendant Atrium failed to disclose hospital facility fees to plaintiff in a Request of Treatment and Authorization Form and accordingly was not entitled to bill the Plaintiff for the fees. Defendant Atrium argues the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because "the Consent Form is unambiguous and, as a matter of law, required the Plaintiff to pay his hospital account at Atrium's regular rates." Defendant Atrium also filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying class certification. II. Background The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on Feb. 4, 2019. He alleged that on Oct. 4, 2018, he presented to the Emergency Department of Defendant Atrium's hospital in Pineville, North Carolina, and prior to receiving treatment he signed Defendant Atrium's "standard Contract," which was the Consent Form. The Plaintiff alleged that he "received no notice or warning as to the substantial additional Emergency Department Facility Fees that are charged by the Hospital in addition to its charges for the specific treatments and services provided, or as to the amounts thereof." The Plaintiff was charged a total of $4,692, consisting of $1,731.25 in charges for specific treatment and services provided, and $2,960.75 for "an Emergency Department Level 5 Facility Fee." The Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Defendant Atrium cannot bill an undisclosed facility fee to emergency room patients under its existing Consent Form, as well as injunctive relief preventing it from collecting amounts attributable to the surcharge from the Plaintiff. The complaint also requested class certification on behalf of similarly situated patients. On May 13, 2019, Defendant Atrium filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In support of the motion to dismiss, defendant Atrium filed several exhibits, including the Consent Form the Plaintiff signed on Oct. 4, 2018, an itemized bill issued to the Plaintiff, and an excerpt from Defendant Atrium's "chargemaster" document, effective in October 2018. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2019 and entered an order denying the motion on Aug. 9, 2019. On Aug. 29, 2019, Defendant Atrium filed an answer responding to the allegations of the complaint and asserting counterclaims to collect the full amount due on the hospital bill. Several of Defendant Atrium's defenses asserted that the Plaintiff could not challenge the facility fee negotiated by his insurance carrier, Blue Cross Blue Shield, because the Plaintiff had "chosen to be insured by a Blue Cross high-deductible policy, with concomitant reduction in insurance premiums as compared to a policy with a lower deductible." The Plaintiff filed a reply to the counterclaims on Oct. 4, 2019, pleading "all equitable defenses, including but not limited to doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, fraud and set-off in bar or limitation of Defendant Atrium's claims and damages to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law." He requested dismissal of Defendant Atrium's counterclaims with prejudice, as well as entry of judgment against defendant Atrium and in favor of the Plaintiff and the class members. On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On Dec. 3, 2020, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff did not enter an appeal from the order at this stage, and proceeded with his claims on an individual basis. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on Jan. 21, 2021. On March 9, 2021, the Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike the affidavit, interrogatory responses, and testimony of Defendant Atrium's expert witness Dr. Robert Bitterman, arguing Bitterman's testimony and opinion "(1) inappropriately seeks to introduce expert testimony on the law and (2) lacks adequate foundation." During a Jan. 7, 2021 deposition, Bitterman testified regarding notice of the facility fee, stating that the facility fee covered "charges for hospital services," and when looking at "the totality of the document, there's at least three or four places where the Consent Form is very direct and very appropriately states exactly" that the patient is "going to be responsible to pay for hospital services." Bitterman also testified regarding legal requirements under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA") and the obligations of hospitals to disclose costs, stating in part that Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") guidance directs providers "not to initiate cost conversations until after the screening exam has been completed for that, unless the patient raises the issues themselves." Bitterman described this as CMS' belief that advertising fees prior to screening "discourages the individual from staying for their required medical screening exam." The trial court conducted a hearing on the motions on April 23, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment and granting Atrium's motion for summary judgment. In granting Defendant Atrium's motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined the following facts were undisputed: The Plaintiff admitted that he signed the Consent Form, did not read the form before signing it, and did not ask questions about the cost of his care before treatment; the Plaintiff also admitted that defendant Atrium's charges were at the regular "chargemaster" rates, with discounts negotiated for his benefit by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Based on these facts, the trial court found that "enforcement of the outstanding contractual payment obligation created by the Consent Form presents a pure issue of law under Shelton v. Duke University Health System, Inc., 179 N.C. App. 120, 633 S.E.2d 113 (2006), rev. denied, 643 S.E.2d 590 (2007)." The trial court viewed the case as "indistinguishable from Shelton," as neither plaintiff argued that they were charged anything other than the regular rates. Additionally, the trial court stated that "even if Atrium was not entitled to summary judgment on its contractual claim for relief, the Plaintiff's decision not to challenge the amount of his bill as unreasonable entitles Atrium to summary judgment under the doctrine of quantum meruit." In denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that Bitterman's testimony was "substantial evidence that Defendant Atrium cannot make the disclosures the Plaintiff seeks without violating the EMTALA. At a minimum, this evidence raises an issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment for the Plaintiff." The Plaintiff filed notice of appeal from both the Dec. 3, 2020 order and the May 25, 2021 order on June 9, 2021. On Sept. 17, 2021, Defendant Atrium filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying class certification. On Sept. 29, 2021, the Pllaintiff filed a response stating that he did not oppose the motion. III. Discussion The Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant Atrium because Atrium failed to disclose the facility fees to him and was accordingly not entitled to bill him for the fees. The Plaintiff further asserts the trial court should have granted his motion for summary judgment. Atrium moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying class certification on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff failed to appeal at the proper time. The Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismisses the Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying class certification and proceeds to address the Plaintiff's individual claims. A. Summary Judgment The Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Atrium because the Consent Form does not provide for the payment of a facility fee and because Atrium "failed to disclose the facility fees to the Plaintiff." 1. Contract Claims Despite the Plaintiff's assertions that Shelton supports his claims, the Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court that the case is indistinguishable from Shelton. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not read the Consent Form but did sign it, and also acknowledged that the facility fee was included on Atrium's chargemaster document, which the Plaintiff had access to prior to signing the Consent Form. The Plaintiff had the right and opportunity to question defendant Atrium with respect to cost, but failed to do so. Simply put, the Consent Form amounts to a clear and unambiguous contractual agreement, which the Plaintiff signed. His arguments that the facility fee should not be included in his contractual obligations are without merit. The Plaintiff also argues that the only "signage" defendant Atrium posted to alert patients of the facility fee are "laminated and printed Consent Forms" and "brochures stating that the patient 'agrees to pay any bills not covered by your insurance.'" Contrary to this argument, however, the Consent Form signed by the Plaintiff includes essentially the same language as the brochures: "This guaranty includes charges for services not covered by my insurance, regardless of the reason that insurance coverage is denied." Although the Plaintiff asserts that adequate signage disclosing the facility fee was necessary, the Consent Form and other documents provided to him prior to his treatment were sufficient to notify the Plaintiff of his obligation to pay the full hospital bill, including the facility fee. 2. Quantum Meruit The Plaintiff contends Atrium's quantum meruit counterclaim fails as a matter of law "due to its failure to disclose its intention to collect a facility fee," and that Atrium may "only collect the charges billed to the Plaintiff for 'services rendered' to the Plaintiff." Defendant Atrium, on the other hand, argues that North Carolina law implies a promise to pay for medical services, and that the only relevant inquiries are whether defendant Atrium provided medical services to the Plaintiff, and a determination of the reasonable value of those services. The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court relied on the Plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that he is not asking the Court to make any determinations as to the reasonable value of hospital services, or as to the amount owing to the Defendant by him or any other patients." Although the Plaintiff asserts on appeal that he "does indeed challenge the amount of his bill as unreasonable," the trial court did not err in relying on his pleadings to determine whether he was in fact challenging the reasonable value of the medical services rendered, in accordance with the Court's opinion in Sales. 3. EMTALA The Plaintiff argues the EMTALA does not give Atrium the right to conceal the facility fee, citing several authorities that allegedly "directly controverted Bitterman's position," while also arguing the trial court should have given "little or no weight" to Bitterman's testimony about the EMTALA. The Plaintiff's argument, however, fails to identify any violation of EMTALA or a failure to adequately disclose the facility fee. As previously discussed, he had access to the chargemaster document and signed the Consent Form, which obligated him to pay the full hospital bill at the regular charged rates. Although the trial court did rely on Bitterman's testimony, the trial court primarily granted summary judgment based on the Consent Form and the terms contained therein. Even if Bitterman's opinion did not align with current federal regulations, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in defendant Atrium's favor. B. Motion to Strike Although the Plaintiff's notice of appeal includes a reference to the trial court's order denying his motion to strike Bitterman's testimony, the Plaintiff has not presented a distinct argument with respect to his appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to strike. Accordingly, and in light of our agreement with the trial court regarding the motions for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion to strike. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals dismisses the Plaintiff's appeal with respect to the motion for class certification, and affirms the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Defendant Atrium and denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4bwyuj3w from Leagle.com. Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by John F. Bloss -- jbloss@greensborolaw.com -- for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Robert W. Fuller -- rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Pearlynn G. Houck -- phouck@robinsonbradshaw.com -- and Travis S. Hinman -- thinman@robinsonbradshaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee Atrium. CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Vellon Sues Over Discriminatory Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOUCHIE VELLON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., DAIRYLAND USA CORPORATION, and MIGUEL VARGAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04809 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) seeks to bring a stop to, and to obtain redress for, those harmed by Defendants' unlawful and discriminatory criminal history screening policies and practices, which have been used to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified job applicants under the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Chance Act by conducting a background check on him and asking him about his conviction history without having first made him a conditional offer of employment. The Defendants further violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Chance Act by declining his employment application on the basis of his conviction history without providing him with Defendants' Article 23-A analysis and a reasonable opportunity to respond to it, says the suit. The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc. engages in distribution of specialty food products in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Certiorari Petition Filed in Conner FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A/K/A CLEVELAND COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, Petitioner v. SARA B. CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent, Case No. 21-1538. Response is due on July 8, 2022. Defendant Cleveland County, North Carolina, aka Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case titled SARA B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a/k/a Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-2012. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings to the Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 17, 2022, Plaintiff Conner appealed from the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings to her employer, the Cleveland Emergency Services, which is a department of Defendant Cleveland County, North Carolina. Conner's complaint alleged that Cleveland County underpaid her for straight (i.e., non-overtime) hours worked during weeks in which she also worked overtime. At issue was whether the alleged underpayment is a violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the theory of "overtime gap time." The Fourth Circuit held that the district court dismissed the suit based on a misreading of its opinion in Monahan v. County of Chesterfield, 95 F.3d 1263 (4th Cir. 1996). Under the correct standard articulated thereinafter, Conner adequately alleged an FLSA claim. Accordingly, Judge James Andrew Wynn, writing for the Fourth Circuit, vacated and remanded for further proceedings. On April 18, 2022, the Plaintiff asked the District Court to enter an order to revive her motion for collective and class certification and issue a ruling on the merits.[BN] Defendant-Appellee-Petitioner CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A/K/A CLEVELAND COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, is represented by: Alexander C. Dale, Esq. WARD & SMITH, PA 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 794-4806 E-mail: acd@wardandsmith.com Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Sara B. Conner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Filing Continued to Jan. 9, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly, v. COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LLC, a California limited liability company; SMART & FINAL STORES LLC, a California limited liability company; SMART & FINAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:22-cv-03159-JFW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order on joint stipulation to stay proceedings and continue mediation completion date, deadline to submit joint report regarding results of mediation deadline to file motion for class certification: 1. The deadline to complete mediation is continued from July 27, 2022 to August 17, 2022. 2. The deadline for Parties to submit a Joint Report Regarding Results of the Mediation 23 is continued from August 8, 2022 to August 29, 2022. 3. The Parties will informally exchange agreed upon data necessary to mediate this matter on a class wide basis before end of July 2022. 4. This action is stayed until August 31, 2022. 5. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification shall be continued to from September 2, 2022 to January 9, 2023. Commerce Distribution Center, Inc. was founded in 1989. The Company's line of business includes the warehousing and storage of a general line of goods. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QOIKfD at no extra charge.[CC] CRST INT'L: Seeks to File 2nd Supplemental Sched Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00075-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file the second supplemental scheduling order within two weeks of the date the order becomes effective, as the Court's order on the motion for class certification is not yet effective. On April 14, 2022, the Court found good cause to extend the scheduling deadlines in this matter until after the Court's ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Rather than amend the scheduling order before the class certification motion was decided, the Court stayed the scheduling deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a second supplemental scheduling order within two weeks of when the Court files an order on the motion for class certification. On June 14, 2022, the Court filed an order on the motion for class certification but held it in abeyance pending further filings from the Plaintiffs. The additional filings -- a modified proposed class definition and an application to appoint class counsel -- are due on June 28, 2022. CRST The Transportation Solution, Inc. is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual revenues of $1.5 billion. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nm979Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J.D. Sweeney,Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone (845) 255-9370 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com The Defendants are represented by: James T. Spolyar, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 492-9288 E-mail: jspolyar@scopelitis.com DAILY HARVEST: May Face Class Action Over Illness Linked to Lentils ------------------------------------------------------------------- According to TopClassActions.com, D. Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce & Associates is inviting people who got sick after consuming Lentil + Leek Crumbles to fill out a form to be eligible to join a potential lawsuit against Daily Harvest. If you qualify, an attorney will contact you to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you. Daily Harvest, a meal delivery company, announced a voluntary recall of its "Lentil + Leek Crumbles" dish and is now facing backlash regarding how it made the announcement on social media. Multiple media outlets report that consumers have experienced nausea, vomiting, and liver damage, as well as "extreme fatigue, dark urine, low-grade fever and whole-body itching with no rash." n a statement on its website, Daily Harvest announced, "We launched an investigation to identify the root cause of the health issues being reported. We're working closely with the FDA and with multiple independent labs to investigate this. We are working with a group of experts to help us get to the bottom of this -- that includes microbiologists, toxin and pathogen experts as well as allergists. All pathogen and toxicology results have come back negative so far, but we're continuing to do extensive testing." The company said it has been in direct contact with customers who got sick and is offering refunds.[GN] DELTA AIRLINES: Scheduling Order Entered in Reep Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK HALEY and RANDAL REEP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Close of fact discovery: Jan. 10, 2023 2. Expert discovery period: Jan. 10 - April 1, 2023 a. Plaintiffs to serve any Feb. 1, 2023 expert report by: b. The Defendant to serve March 1, 2023 any expert report by: c. Depositions of experts to occur thereafter: 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for April 10, 2023 class certification: a. The Defendant will have 30 days to respond. b. The Plaintiffs will have 21 days to reply. Delta is one of the major airlines of the United States and a legacy carrier. One of the world's oldest airlines in operation, Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xSsnpW at no extra charge.[CC] DENTSPLY SIRONA: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Dentsply Sirona Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors. Dentsply investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the lawsuit, 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. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] EGV COMPANIES: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-recorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BROWN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EGV COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01382-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that she received pre-recorded calls from the Defendant on May 19, 2022 to her telephone number 727-470-XXXX. Knowing that the Plaintiff's car warranty was expiring soon, the Defendant was attempting to offer the Plaintiff warranty for her vehicle. The Plaintiff also claims that she and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed by the Defendant's unlawful conduct because their privacy has been invaded, they were annoyed, their time has been wasted, and their telephone has been intruded that occupied it from receiving legitimate communications. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages against the Defendant, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant was previously sued for its alleged unlawful conduct that violated TCPA, including calls that involve transmission of pre-recorded messages, which were not necessitated by an emergency, the suit added. EGV Companies, Inc. offers consumer warranties for their vehicle. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com ENCORE SENIOR: Borden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers -------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNE BORDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE SENIOR LIVING, LLC and 41 MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00707-SCD (E.D. Wis., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked as a caregiver at Defendants' Clifden Court Assisted Living and Memory Care location in Wisconsin from approximately December 2021 until approximately June 2022. Encore Senior Living, LLC is an owner and operator of senior housing, senior care, and senior living facilities across the U.S., including in Wisconsin. 41 Management, LLC is an operator of senior housing, senior care, and senior living facilities across the U.S., including in Wisconsin, with its principal place of business located at 101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 616, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Madlinger's Disclosure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICIA MADLINGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-00154 (FLW) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismisses the Plaintiff's disclosure claims with prejudice. I. Introduction The action arises out of a debt collection letter. Plaintiff Malinger alleges that Defendant Enhanced Recovery ("ERC") violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA") by sending out an allegedly misleading debt collection letter in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692g, and improperly conveying Plaintiff's private information to a third-party in violation of Sections 1692c(b) and 1692f. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). However, as a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue her claims. In that regard, both parties have submitted supplemental briefing addressing the Plaintiff's standing. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing Article III standing for her FDCPA claims. As such, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. To the extent she believes she can plead additional facts to cure the deficiencies in her multiple-addresses FDCPA claims, the Plaintiff is given leave to further amend her complaint as to those claims, within 30 days from the date of the accompanying Order. The Plaintiff, however, lacks standing to bring her disclosure claim under the FDCPA as a matter of law. II. Background Ms. Madlinger allegedly took out a store credit card from Kohl's for which Capital One, N.A. was the original creditor. At some point thereafter, the Plaintiff failed to make further payments on her account and defaulted. Capital One transferred the account to ERC for the purpose of collecting the Plaintiff's debt. As part of the Defendant's debt collection efforts, the Defendant sent a collection letter dated Jan. 6, 2020, to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff alleges that ERC did not mail the letter directly to her. Instead, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant relied on a third-party vendor to prepare and mail the letter. The Plaintiff alleges that, through its communication with the third-party vendor, the Defendant disclosed personal and highly confidential information about the Plaintiff, including her status as a debtor and the amount of debt she owed to Capital One. In sharing this information, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA's prohibition on certain communications with third parties, and used unfair means in connection with the collection of a debt. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated sections 1692e, e(10), g, and g(b) of the FDCPA when it allegedly confused her by including four separate addresses in its collection letter. She alleges that the least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to which "office" a debt verification letter should be sent to. The Plaintiff alleges that the "problem with the Collection Letter is that it contains four separate addresses for the Defendant." What is more, she contends that the least sophisticated consumer could be confused by the statement's reference to his or her right to "dispute the validity of the debt," as well as the labeling of an address as for "correspondence," not disputes. Furthermore, she maintains that the least sophisticated consumer could interpret the statement's references to an "office" and "ERC's office below" to mean a physical office address, not a P.O. Box, and conclude that none of the three addresses on the front of the letter is the correct address for disputes. In short, Plaintiff alleges that this confusion "overshadowed the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt and obtain verification of the debt." On Jan. 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant alleging that its use of multiple addresses in the collection letter, dated Jan. 6, 2020, was false and misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. The Defendant then moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's multiple address claims. Following the Defendant's initial motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a third-party disclosure claim. The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss. Prior to assessing the pleadings, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, pending further briefing from the parties analyzing whether the Plaintiff has established standing to bring each of her claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,___U.S.___, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). III. Discussion The question before the Court is whether the Plaintiff has alleged that she suffered a concrete harm. The Plaintiff argues that she has suffered concrete harms sufficient to confer Article III standing to bring her multiple-addresses and disclosure claims in federal court. "Standing is not dispensed in gross; rather plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press and for each form of relief that they seek (for example, injunctive relief and damages)." Accordingly, Judge Wolfson addresses each category of harm, in turn. A. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring her multiple-addresses claims. In support of standing for her claim that the Defendant violated sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA by including multiple addresses in its debt collection letter, the Plaintiff alleges that the least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to where to send a debt verification request and could believe that none of the addresses in the letter was the correct address to dispute the debt. With respect to injury and harm, she alleges that she suffered "injury" by being "subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the Defendant" and "actual harm" by being "the target of Defendant's misleading debt collection communications." The Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts showing Article III standing. As she has the independent obligation to assess standing, Judge Wolfson disagrees with both parties. She says, the Plaintiff's general allegations of confusion and misleading debt communications in violation of Sections 1692e, e(10), (g), and g(b) do not amount to a concrete, injury-in-fact sufficient for Article III standing. Nowhere in the Plaintiff's amended complaint does she allege that she sought to send out a debt verification letter, let alone two separate debt verification letters, or that she refrained from sending a letter to her detriment because she was somehow discouraged by the multiple addresses in the debt collection letter. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged Article III standing to bring her multiple-addresses claims. B. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring her disclosure claims. The Plaintiff next argues that by disclosing her confidential information to a third-party mailing vendor, the Defendant violated sections 1692c(b) and 1692f of the FDCPA. She alleges that in communicating with the third-party vendor, the Defendant disclosed sensitive information about her, including "her name, the amount allegedly owed, the Plaintiff's home address and other information." In doing so, the Plaintiff alleges that this disclosure constituted an "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt" in violation of Section 1692f. According to her, she was "harmed by being subject to abusive collection practices, from which she had a substantive right to be free of having her privacy invaded and by having her private and protected information shared and disseminated with unauthorized parties." Judge Wolfson holds that the Plaintiff does not have Article III standing for her Sections 1692c(b) and 1692f claims. She finds that although the Third Circuit has not addressed the tort of public dissemination of private information in the context of third-party mail vendors, at least three other district courts within the Third Circuit have done so, and have rejected the qualification of the "mail vendor" claim as a public dissemination of private information tort. The Plaintiff's mail vendor theory of harm fails for the same reason—it involves no publicity. Even were the Court to construe the amended complaint as alleging that a small group of letter vendor employees may have read the collection letter, such a communication would be insufficient. Lastly, the Plaintiff does not allege that her information was read by a single person, much less the broader public. Without these allegations, her alleged harms are no more than alleged statutory violations. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wolfson concludes that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring both multiple-addresses and disclosure claims under the FDCPA. Nonetheless, to the extent she believes she can plead additional facts that demonstrate that she relied on the multiple addresses in the debt collection letter to her detriment, the Plaintiff is given leave to further amend her amended complaint within 30 days from the date of the accompanying Order. The Plaintiff's disclosure claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ms4aykdr from Leagle.com. EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Salas Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS SALAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05069 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to timely pay wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Mr. Salas began his employment at one of the Defendant's fitness clubs located at 225 Liberty St., New York, New York as a maintenance associate from September 2019 until July 2021 and then again from February 2022 to March 2022. Equinox Holdings Inc. is an owner and operator of fitness clubs, with its principal place of business located at 895 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com FLUOR CORP: Settlement Hearing in Securities Suit Set on Nov. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to Daily Record News, JND Legal Administration announced that a proposed settlement has been reached in the case KIN-YIP CHUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. FLUOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants (N.D. Tex. Case No. 3:18-cv-01338-X). A hearing will be held on Nov. 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Brantley Starr, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce Street, Courtroom 1525, Dallas, TX 75242 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for consideration in the amount of $33,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 30%, and payment of litigation costs and expenses of not more than $200,000, plus interest on such fees and expenses, and awards for Lead Plaintiffs of not more than $75,000 in the aggregate, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 25, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), filed with the Court. The Court has certified a class of investors for settlement purposes only ("Settlement Class") and you may be a member of the Settlement Class ("Settlement Class Member"). The proposed Settlement Class will consist of all persons or entities who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the common stock of Fluor (NYSE: FLR) between August 14, 2013 and February 14, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; Fluor's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who was an officer or director during the Settlement Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; the judges presiding over the Action and the immediate family members of such judges; the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity; and persons who submit valid and timely requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class. If you purchased or acquired Fluor common stock during the Settlement Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Fluor common stock. You may obtain copies of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form, and the Stipulation by downloading them at the Settlement website at: www.FluorSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are unable to do so, you may contact the Claims Administrator to obtain copies: Fluor Securities Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91325 Seattle, WA 98111 Tel: (888) 964-2130 info@FluorSecuritiesSettlement.com The case has been litigated since May 25, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs plead that, in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws, Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions, with scienter, concerning the business operations, accounting treatment, and financial reporting concerning Fluor's fixed-price projects causing Fluor's common stock price to be inflated during the Settlement Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs further plead that revelation of Defendants' fraud caused statistically significant stock declines, thereby injuring Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class of investors. Defendants have denied and continue to deny these allegations and that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or violation of the law. The Settlement will resolve the lawsuit and the Released Claims as to the Defendants and other Released Parties. Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by Lead Counsel who may be reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo or Jennifer B. Sobers, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100 and/or Darryl Alvarado or Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, (800) 449-4900. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form received by mail or online no later than October 14, 2022, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the long-form Notice, so that it is received no later than October 17, 2022. If you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and wish to file your own individual lawsuit based on the Released Settlement Class Claims, Defendants may argue that you face a time bar under applicable statutes of limitation or repose, risks that you should discuss with an appropriate legal advisor. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiffs in the manner and form explained in the detailed long-form Notice and received no later than October 17, 2022. Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Weidman Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719-GAD-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment: 2. dismissing the Plaintiffs Richard Epperson's and Joyce Bonasera's claims; and 3. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class: -- Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), a class is certified in this case consisting of all persons who purchased or leased a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31 in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas, for determination of the following issues: a) Whether the Class Vehicles' brake systems are defective? b) Whether Defendant possessed pre-sale knowledge of the defect? c) Whether information about the defect that was concealed would be material to a reasonable buyer? -- The Plaintiffs Paul Weidman, Jean Louis Thuotte, Sr., Steve Mitchell, Marty Cobb, Amanda Gollot and Teresa Perry are designated as class representative for their respective jurisdictions. -- E. Powell Miller, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Adam J. Levitt, and Mark P. Chalos are appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). -- Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and present to the Court on or before April 21, 2022 a proposal for a notice to class members that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and a method of delivering notice to absent class members. -- Counsel for the parties shall submit a Proposed Joint Redacted Opinion and Order no later than April 7, 2022. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39W2X2D at no extra charge.[CC] FORSTER & GARBUS: Conditional Cert of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINE FRANCOIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, Case No. 3:21-cv-20664-RLS (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2), granting conditional certification of a settlement class defined as: "All New Jersey consumers who were sent initial letters and/or notices from the Defendant attempting to collect a judgment on behalf of BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, which stated: "THE ABOVE JUDGMENT DOCKET IN COURT AGAINST YOU REMAINS UPAID. THE JUDGMENT CONTINUES TO ACCRUE INTEREST UNTIL PAID IN FULL. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY YOUR DEBT AND SATISFY THE JUDGMENT." 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e), approving conditionally the settlement of this action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement annexed as Exhibit "1" to the Joint Memorandum; 3. Conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes of Settlement; 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(1)(B), approving the form and substance of, and the directing the manner of service of, the notice to the Class as set forth in the Exhibit "2", which is annexed to the Joint Memorandum; 5. Setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and 6. Granting the parties to this action and the Class such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Forster and Garbus is a debt collector. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OpmuHE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com The Defendant is represented by: Deborah Isaacson, Esq. Rivkin Radler, Esq. 477 Madison Avenue, Suite 410 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 455-9549 Facsimile: (212) 687 9044 E-mail: Deborah.Isaacson@rivkin.com GOOD FAT: Ryan Files Suit Over Snack Products' False Ad ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Ryan and Michelle Pimentel, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Good Fat Co. Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03391-SK (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its snack products in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and State Consumer Protection Statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently features "GOOD FATS" on its products, perpetuating the message that its products are healthy, healthful, better for them, and a healthier alternative to the competition throughout its marketing and advertising. However, this is false, misleading, and deceptive because Defendant's products contain high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the risk of severe health issues, including coronary heart disease, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful conduct in the labeling and marketing of the products and conduct a corrective advertising campaign. The Good Fat Co. Ltd. is a Canadian limited liability company with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. From its Toronto headquarters, the Defendant produces, markets, and distributes its consumer food products in retail stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP 2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 274-4663 E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com - and - Amir Shenaq, Esq. SHENAQ PC 3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (888) 909-9993 E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com GREEN ARROW: Faces Class Action Over High-Interest Loans -------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges payday lender Green Arrow Solutions, who claims to be affiliated with a Lake County, California Native American tribe, has loaned money to Indiana residents at usuriously excessive interest rates, in violation of state law. The 16-page case says that neither Green Arrow, who purports to be an entity created and owned by the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, nor its individual operators or alleged co-conspirators are actually affiliated with the tribe, and thus cannot use the tribe's sovereign immunity as a shield against Indiana usury laws. The lawsuit alleges Green Arrow offers loans to Indiana residents at interest rates in excess of 700 percent annually. The complaint accuses Green Arrow, Integra Financial Services, Nevada Impact Management and two individuals of running afoul of the Indiana Consumer Credit Code and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). According to the case, Green Arrow's actual lending operations are carried out in locations other than tribal lands, in Utah, and no member of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians participates significantly in the company's lending business. Further, the profits Green Arrow derives from its lending business are received by non-tribal members, the suit says. From the complaint: "These so-called 'tribal lenders' usually do not survive scrutiny when examined closely, since virtually all business functions occur far from tribal land, by nontribal members, and overwhelmingly benefit non-tribal members to such a degree that tribal involvement is effectively nil. Where non-tribal individuals and entities control and manage the substantive lending functions, provide the lending capital necessary to support the operation, and bear the economic risk associated with the operation, they are not in fact ‘operated' by Native American tribes and, therefore, are not shielded by sovereign immunity." The plaintiff, a Johnson County, Indiana resident, claims to have borrowed $300 from Green Arrow at an annual interest rate of more than 775 percent. Payment of the loan at that interest rate would have resulted in Green Arrow receiving $785, including more than $485 in interest alone, the lawsuit says. In Indiana, the maximum interest rate that may be charged on most types of consumer loans is 36 percent annually, the case states. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals with Indiana addresses to whom a loan was made in the name of Green Arrow Solutions or Green Arrow Loans at more than 36 percent interest within the past four years. [GN] HAMILTON, ON: Averts Class Action Over Red Hill Parkway Crashes --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Van Dongen, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that a judge has declined to green light a class-action lawsuit against Hamilton over crashes on the Red Hill Valley Parkway -- leaving dozens of collision victims to decide whether to try to sue the city individually. The $250-million claim was filed in 2019 after the city revealed troubling friction tests on the east-end parkway were inexplicably buried for five years. Over that time, 200 serious crashes and four fatalities occurred on the roadway. The city's admission spurred an ongoing judicial inquiry -- and separately, a would-be class action on behalf of victims of nearly 1,500 crashes on the parkway since it opened in 2007. Representative plaintiffs included family members of Michael Sholer, who died in a crossover crash on the Red Hill in 2017, and Corinne Klassen, who was injured in a crash shortly after the parkway opened. The untested claim alleged negligence in the design, construction and maintenance of the seven-kilometre parkway -- and that the city "hid" the damning report. Justice David L. Edwards, who heard arguments in March for and against allowing the proposed class action to go ahead, dismissed the certification motion in a decision released on June 20. Edwards pointed in his conclusion to "the inherent individual nature" of the causes of motor-vehicle collisions on the Red Hill as a reason why the explosive suit failed to meet the threshold to be certified as a class action. The justice acknowledged that "behaviour modification" of wrongdoers who "have the potential to cause widespread damage" is one of the main advantages of class actions -- but he also pointed out the ongoing, separate judicial inquiry into the parkway could achieve that goal. "If the allegations against the city are proven to be true, this is indeed a matter for significant public concern," Edwards wrote, before later adding: "The judicial inquiry will no doubt bring as much -- if not more -- public scrutiny that could also flow from a class proceeding." Rob Hooper, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, confirmed "we lost" in a brief email, but added he had only started reviewing the decision on June 20. "We will meet as a team to determine whether there are grounds for an appeal." The city confirmed it received and "respects" the court decision. "We will continue to respond to any legal claims that may come forward and are committed to continuing our participation in the judicial inquiry, which is examining many of the questions Hamiltonians have around the construction and use of the parkway," said spokesperson Matthew Grant. Whether the class-action certification decision is appealed or not, the city is unlikely to be off the hook for legal costs related to the "slippery" Red Hill mystery. The Spectator previously reported there were at least 22 individual parkway collision lawsuits against the city waiting in the wings for a decision on the class action. Edwards noted those pending claims in his decision. "The individual litigations will serve as financial incentive if there is indeed malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of the defendant," he wrote. The Spectator was unable to tally the total amount claimed against the city for all individual Red Hill lawsuits before the courts, but based on documents reviewed so far it is likely to exceed $19 million. Hooper has previously noted at least nine of his clients who joined the proposed class action also have reserved the right to pursue individual legal claims against Hamilton. The class action decision comes in the middle of public hearings for a separate judicial inquiry headed by Superior Court Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel. That city-funded inquiry -- which could cost as much as $20 million -- is not meant to establish civil or criminal liability. But Edwards wrote in his decision that individual lawsuits against the city will "likely be aided" by inquiry findings. [GN] HARMLESS HARVEST: Luis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN YAN LUIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARMLESS HARVEST, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04797 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://www.Harmlessharvest.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. Harmless Harvest, Inc. manufactures non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers coconut water, and tea products to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor A. Saab Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB, PC 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (718)740-5060 Facsimile: (718)709-5912 E-mail: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI, and MIRYAM KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and for the of the general public, v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties submit a joint motion concerning the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs request the Court to extend time to file a motion to certify a class to and including December 14, 2022. The Plaintiffs further request that to the extent other dates in the operative scheduling order need to be altered given the new class certification motion deadline, the Parties be ordered to meet and confer and propose any further changes to those dates through a joint motion filed on or before July 1, 2022. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tXD9d4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Fox, Esq. Joanna L. Fox, Esq. Russell A. Gold, Esq. FOX LAW, APC 225 West Plaza Street, Suite 102 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 256-7616 Facsimile: (858) 256-7618 E-mail: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com Russ@FoxLawAPC.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. 10 BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: Tblood@bholaw.com LHurst@bholaw.com jmacpherson@bholaw.com The Attorneys for Defendants Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC and Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., are: Michael D. Roth, Esq. David Balser, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. Timothy H. Lee, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Telephone: (213) 218-4014 E-mail: mroth@kslaw.com The Attorneys for the Defendants Axis Insurance Company Axis Specialty U.S. Services, Inc., are: Kelsey Harclerode, Esq. Jacob Sommer, Esq. Jeffrey Landis, Esq. Adya Baker, Esq. ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M St NW, Ste. 250 Washington, DC 20036-3574 Telephone: (202) 706-5225 E-mail: kelsey@zwillgen.com The Attorneys for Defendants Health Enrollment Group, are: Edward S. Zusman, Esq. Kevin K. Eng, Esq MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 465 California St, Ste. 401 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 438-4515 Facsimile: (415) 434-4505 E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com The Attorneys for Defendant, Administrative Concepts, Inc., are: Gennady L. Lebedev, Esq. LEBEDEV, MICHAEL & HELMI, APLC 10999 Riverside Dr., Ste. 201 Studio City, CA 91602 Telephone: (818) 757-7677 Facsimile: (818) 757-7047 E-mail: Gennady@LMHlawyers.com The Attorneys for the Defendants Cost Containment Group, Inc Ocean Consulting Group, Inc., are: Brenna J. McGill, Esq. Timothy W. Fredricks, Esq. Jared M. Ahern, Esq. WINGET SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG LLP 1900 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4312 Telephone: 310-836-4800 Facsimile: 310-836-4801 E-mail: mcgill.b@wssllp.com The Attorney for Defendant ACUSA, is: Timothy Horton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY HORTON 600 W Broadway, Ste. 700 San Diego, CA 92101-3370 Telephone: (619) 272-7017 Facsimile: (619) 374-1668 E-mail: timhorton@timhortonlaw.com HUGO BOSS: Faces Tipoo Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, MOHAMMED TIPOO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUGO BOSS RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03603 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) alleges the Defendant of delinquent wage payments in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a manual laborer from approximately 2018 until February 2022 at the Defendant's 801 Tanger Mall Drive, Riverhead location. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to timely pay the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated manual laborers' wages throughout the entirety of their employment with the Defendant. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis in accordance with the law, the Defendant compensated them every other week, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant to recover damages as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. offers fashionable attire and fragrances for men and women from the designer brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Class Action Mulled Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- April Strauss, Esq., of Legal Scoops, reports that the number of school districts affected by the Illuminate Education Data Breach continues to expand -- most recently adding Ventura Unified School District pupils to the list of affected students. Illuminate Education ("Illuminate"), based in Irvine, California, offers a popular suite of applications that provide student management services, screening, and progress monitoring to school districts across the country. According to the company and affected school districts, on January 8, 2022, Illuminate became aware of "suspicious activity" within some Illuminate applications. After investigation, Illuminate determined that "certain databases containing potentially protected student information were subject to unauthorized access between December 28, 2021 and January 8, 2022." The affected databases may have contained protected data related to current and/or former students. For a free privacy consultation fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248). What Personal Information Did the Breached Databases Contain? Student name Academic information Behavior information Enrollment information Accommodation information Special education information Student demographic information What California School Districts Have Reported Breached Student Data? Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Ventura Unified School District (VUSD) Riverside County School District(s) Ceres Unified School District Rocklin Unified School District Illuminate Education's data breach has impacted students in other school districts as well, including students in Colorado, Connecticut, and over 800,000 current and former New York City students. Illuminate Education is offering the minor students 12 months of complimentary identity monitoring services through IDX. Sample copies of the Illuminate California Data Breach Notices are available here for LAUSD, Ventura Unified School District, Riverside County, Ceres Unified, and Rocklin Unified. Personal data about students represents a particularly attractive target for cyber thieves because minors do not use credit cards, file taxes, or have other contact with their credit on a regular basis. Thieves take advantage of this lapse in oversight to use the stolen credentials of minors to create false identities and rack up fraudulent charges. If you are the parent of a minor affected by these data breaches, it is vital that you take steps, like credit freezes, to prevent long-term repercussions to your child's credit from this data breach. For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248). Special California Privacy Laws Protect Your Information If your student is or was a California resident and received a Recent Notice of Data Breach from Illuminate Education, you may be entitled to between $100 and $1,000 or your actual damages, whichever is greater. Participants in data breach lawsuits can recover damages, injunctive relief (to make sure that the business has reasonable security practices to protect consumer data from being leaked again), and anything else the court concludes is necessary to compensate data breach victims and prevent these harms from reoccurring. California has laws that specifically protect your personal information. The Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA)requires that every online service used primarily for K-12 school purposes must maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect student personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, or disclosure. The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA)requires that every health care provider and health care service plan who maintains medical information do so in a manner that preserves its confidentiality. The California Customer Records Actrequires businesses to put into place and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect consumer's personal information. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) contains many protections for personal information of California residents. If certain types of personal information, like medical information and names, are left unencrypted and are accessed, stolen, or hacked because a business didn't fulfill its obligation to implement and maintain reasonable security, an affected California resident can sue to protect their rights under the SOPIPA, CCPA, and CCRA. Medical information is additionally covered by the CMIA. Cyber crimes present an attractive target for hackers: Data can be bought and sold anonymously, and the going rate per personal record is under $20 per record, depending on the type of information, according to Privacy Affairs Dark Web Index of 2021. Medical records are even more valuable, as they potentially provide access to expensive health care along with other forms of identity theft. Thieves may choose to wait years to capitalize on compromised personal data. The longer cyber thieves can go undetected, the more they stand to profit from their illegal activities. Personal data about minor students, which may include special education information and other highly sensitive materials, should be robustly protected by school districts and the educational technology companies they use. As noted by the California Attorney General's Office, "The data on students collected and maintained by Ed Tech can be very sensitive, including medical histories, social and emotional assessments, child welfare or juvenile justice system involvement, progress reports, and test results." [1] The sensitive nature of this data means that "student information is something that must be handled with great care. [. . . ] As the devices we use each day become increasingly connected, it's critical that we implement robust safeguards for what is collected, how it is used, and with whom it is shared."[2] We Can Help You Exercise Your Legal Rights Every case is unique. Even when your data has been part of a breach, despite the provisions of the SOPIPA, CMIA, and CCPA you may not be awarded compensation. Experienced data breach and class action attorneys can help you exercise your rights, evaluate your options, and decide whether you are entitled to compensation. There are no out of pocket costs to you, as we only get paid if we prevail. If you have received a Data Breach Notice from Illuminate for your child and are concerned about this breach and what your options are please fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248). [GN] IMOBILE LLC: Samayoa Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA SAMAYOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iMOBILE, LLC and iMOBILE USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03389 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated proper overtime wages for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a store manager from February 2017 to January 2020 in Chino Hills, California. iMobile USA, LLC and iMobile, LLC are exclusive T-Mobile (formerly Sprint PCS) Authorized Retailers specializing in wireless communication services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 INOTIV INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Inotiv, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOTV) between September 21, 2021 and June 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Innovative Industrial Properties investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Inotiv class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case--id=6426 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. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Envigo RMS, LLC ("Envigo") and Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia facility (the "Cumberland Facility") engaged in widespread and flagrant violations of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"); (2) Envigo and Inotiv's Cumberland Facility continuously violated the AWA; (3) Envigo and Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to animal welfare at the Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv was likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5) Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the Cumberland Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due diligence; and (7) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case--id=6426 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor 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 http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Hauser Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSH HAUSER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02517-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 17, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security officer since approximately February 2022. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers for the time they spent performing pre-shift pass down work. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to properly pay their 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. The Defendant also failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover all unpaid wages for himself and all other similarly situated security officers. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deem just and proper. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. offers security services for its customers throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com INTERO REAL ESTATE: To Pay Each Claimant $350 in Telemarketing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- TopClassActions.com reports that Intero Real Estate Services agreed to a settlement to resolve claims that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The settlement benefits individuals who received two or more phone calls promoting Intero Real Estate Services within a 12-month period despite having their number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry between Sept. 13, 2014, and Dec. 19, 2019. Eligible calls were made by certain Intero agents using the Mojo dialing service. Intero identified 37,962 phone numbers that received a total of 171,584 call attempts. Intero is a Berkshire Hathaway affiliate that specializes in buying and selling both residential and commercial real estate. Additionally, Intero provides lending, title and home warranty services. The company primarily operates in the San Francisco Bay area. According to a 2021 class action lawsuit, Intero Real Estate Services markets its business by harassing consumers with unsolicited telemarketing phone calls. Plaintiffs in the case say they never gave their information to Intero to be contacted. Despite this, Intero allegedly called them to advertise their services and inquire about selling their properties. To make matters worse, the plaintiffs say that they were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry at the time of the unsolicited telemarketing calls. Plaintiffs in the telemarketing class action lawsuit say these calls violated the TCPA, a federal law that prohibits unsolicited telemarketing calls, texts and faxes. Under the TCPA, businesses must get prior written consent before contacting consumers -- or face thousands of dollars in penalties. Intero Real Estate Services hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these allegations with a class action settlement. The exact settlement amount is not currently available. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can collect a cash payment. Intero has agreed to pay each class member $350. Class members will have 180 days to cash their checks, but may also receive payments through electronic deposit, PayPal, Venmo or other payment options. In addition to providing cash payments, Intero agreed to change its policies and procedures to comply with do-not-call rules. Under these new policies, Intero will provide more information when calling customers, maintain an internal do-not-call list, and make other changes to ensure that consumers do receive harassing telemarketing calls. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 6, 2022. The final approval hearing for the Intero Real Estate Services TCPA settlement is scheduled for Oct. 20, 2022. In order to receive a payment from the settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 6, 2022. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who received two or more phone calls promoting Intero Real Estate Services within a 12-month period despite having their number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry between Sept. 13, 2014, and Dec. 19, 2019. Eligible calls were made by certain Intero agents using the Mojo dialing service. Intero identified 37,962 phone numbers that received a total of 171,584 call attempts. Potential Award: $350 Proof of Purchase: Text Claim Form Deadline: 07/06/2022 TO FILE A CLAIM, CLICK: https://kccsecure.com/interoclassactionsettlement/Claimant Case Name: Mitchell, et al. v. Intero Real Estate Services, Case No. 5:18-cv-05623-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing: 10/20/2022 Settlement Website: InteroClassActionSettlement.com Claims Administrator: Mitchell v. Intero Real Estate Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 43501 Providence, RI 02940-3501 Info@interoclassactionsettlement.com 844-594-2521 Class Counsel: TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP REESE LLP BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Defense Counsel: SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP BURR FORMAN LLP [GN] IONQ INC: Pomerantz Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ) and certain of its former officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and docketed under 22-cv-01536, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ securities between March 30, 2021 and May 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ securities during the Class Period, you have until August 1, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. For information about joining the class action, click: https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=IONQ IonQ claims to "develop quantum computers designed to solve the world's most complex problems." On or about September 30, 2021, IonQ became a public entity via business combination with dMY Technology Group, Inc. III, a special purpose acquisition company. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being available through major cloud providers; (4) that a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping transactions with related parties; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and business." It further claimed that the Company reported "[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party round-tripping." On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.71, or 9.03%, to close at $7.15 per share on May 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] IONQ INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Attention IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ") (NYSE: IONQ) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between March 30, 2021 and May 2, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in IonQ, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ionq-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28746&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against IonQ includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) the Company's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3) IonQ's quantum the computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being available through major cloud providers; (4) a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper roundtripping transactions with related parties; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were the materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: August 1, 2022 Aggrieved IonQ 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] IT WORKS: Brooks' Bid for Prelim. Injunction & Class Cert. Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AILEEN BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IT WORKS MARKETING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01341-DAD-BAK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. I. Background The putative class action arises from Plaintiff Brooks' purchase of a weight loss product called Thermofight Xx from Defendants It Works Marketing, Inc. and It Works! Global Inc. (together, "It Works!"). The Plaintiff, a Bakersfield resident, proceeds on her first amended class action complaint ("FAC") against Defendants It Works! and Defendants Mark Pentecost, the It Works! founder and CEO, and Paul Nassif, a plastic surgeon and reality TV star who has developed and promoted products for It Works!. In her FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that she purchased Thermofight from an independent distributor in reliance on defendants' representations that it was a safe and effective weight control product. Despite alleging that she used Thermofight as directed, the Plaintiff claims it did not deliver on its advertised benefits or provide any results at all. Moreover, she alleges that when making her initial purchase she was enrolled in an auto-shipment program without her knowledge, which required a minimum of three purchases of Thermofight (one per month). The Plaintiff alleges that she was charged for two purchases of Thermofight before realizing that she had been enrolled in the auto-shipment program. Although she was able to cancel future shipments over the phone, her request for a refund for the second shipment was denied. The Plaintiff alleges that these auto-billing practices constitute an unlawful "automatic renewal" prohibited under California law. She does not allege that she suffered any other injuries from using Thermofight. Aside from her individual allegations, the Plaintiff is also suing on behalf of two putative classes and the general public. As detailed in her FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, collectively, have defrauded the public by marketing, distributing, and selling a suite of "unapproved weight control drugs"1 through "an illegal multi-level marketing scam," which uses "unlawful credit card repeat auto-billing practices." In addition, she claims that the Defendants' Terms of Use contract is unlawful because it contains several unconscionable provisions. After originally filing the lawsuit on Sept. 3, 2021, the Plaintiff amended her complaint two months later, on Nov. 8, 2021, asserting several violations of California consumer protection statutes. Specifically, shr asserts the following five claims against the Defendants in her operative FAC: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law's (UCL) unlawful prong; (2) violation of the UCL's fraudulent prong; (3) violation of the UCL's unfair prong; (4) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and (5) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In conjunction with these five claims, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the Defendants from "continuing to conduct business through unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices," engaging in "deceptive and unlawful advertising practices," and entering into contracts which allegedly contravene California law. She also prays for several equitable remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, and orders enjoining defendants' allegedly "deceptive, unconscionable, and fraudulent practices" and requiring that they engage in a corrective advertising campaign. On Dec. 21, 2021, over three and half months after initiating the lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed the pending motion. In support of that motion, she filed four declarations with attached exhibits: (i) the declaration of the Plaintiff's counsel, Gregory S. Weston; (ii) the declaration of Nathan Wong, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of California, Irvine's (UCI) School of Medicine and the director of UCI's heart disease prevention program; (iii) the declaration of William M. London, a professor of public health at California State University, Los Angeles; and (iv) the declaration of Robert L. FitzPatrick, a co-author of two books regarding multi-level marketing (MLM) and pyramid schemes. The Plaintiff, however, did not include a declaration of her own in support of the pending motion. The Defendants filed an opposition brief on Jan. 18, 2022, arguing, among other things, that the Plaintiff cannot show that she is in imminent danger of suffering any irreparable injury. The Plaintiff filed her reply brief on Jan. 25, 2022, contending that she has offered sufficient evidence of injury, that she seeks "public injunctive relief," and that she has no adequate remedy at law. In the proposed order filed with her pending motion, the Plaintiff details the "three forms of injunctive relief" requested in her motion: (1) enjoining the Defendants' advertising and sale of defendants four weight control products; (2) enjoining the Defendants' auto-billing practices; and (3) enjoining the Defendants' "use of exculpatory contract provisions which she contends are unlawful and unconscionable waivers of unwaivable rights." In her pending motion, the Plaintiff contends that she, the putative classes, and "the public" will suffer imminent and irreparable harm absent this court issuing preliminary injunctive relief. She alleges five such harms. First, the Plaintiff asserts that promoting "unapproved drugs" causes irreparable harm based on an FDA webpage where it generically lists harms from "unapproved drugs." She included copies of FDA enforcement letters sent to non-It Works! companies. Second, the Plaintiff relies on the declarations from professor of epidemiology Nathan Wong, professor of public health William M. London, and author Robert L. FitzPatrick as support for additional alleged harms from "unapproved drugs." Professor Wong states in his declaration that a specific advertising claim made by the Defendants regarding Thermofight -- i.e., it "contains a clinically proven weight-loss ingredient —--an average of 31 pounds lost over 90 days!" -- "lacks biologic plausibility." Author FitzPatrick's declaration, in contrast, concludes from his review of portions of the FAC, the It Works! website, that the Defendants' conduct has "serious, wide-ranging, and devasting non-economic and irreparable harms." Third, the Plaintiff argues in her moving papers, without citing to any declaration or evidence, that "harm caused by hidden auto-billing agreements by their nature is irreparable" because it leads to "frustration, hassle, and confusion." Fourth, she claims that unconscionable and unlawful contract provisions, such as those allegedly employed by the Defendants in their Terms of Use, "continue to cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff" because the Defendants' filed a motion to compel arbitration in this action. Fifth, and finally, the Plaintiff generally contends that an injunction will prevent irreparable harm to the putative classes and the general public's right to a marketplace free of unapproved drugs, fraud, and unfair competition. III. Analysis The Plaintiff contends that she and the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the Court granting preliminary injunctive relief. Judge Drozd holds that the Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that a general right of the public to be protected from "fraud, deceit, and unlawful conduct" amounts to an irreparable harm for purposes of determining whether preliminary injunctive relief should be granted. In fact, the Plaintiff waited over three and a half months after filing the lawsuit before bringing the pending motion, which also "weighs against a claim of irreparable injury." In sum, based on the evidence before the Court in support of the pending motion, the Plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing that she is likely to face immediate and irreparable harm requiring the granting of preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo. Aside from asserting that the evidence shows that there is imminent irreparable harm, the Plaintiff also contends that because she is seeking "public injunctive relief," there is ongoing irreparable harm that warrants a preliminary injunction. This argument raises several difficult questions including whether the specific relief the Plaintiff is seeking constitutes public injunctive relief, whether public injunctive relief is available on a preliminary basis, or whether a request for public injunctive relief modifies the requirement that a plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable harm to obtain such relief. However, the Court need not address these issues in resolving the pending motion because Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek public injunctive relief. Alternatively, the Plaintiff also argues that she is not required to make a showing of irreparable harm when an injunction is sought to prevent a violation of a federal or a California statute that specifically provides for injunctive relief. Judge Drozd holds that the Plaintiff's argument in this regard is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff suggests that California law controls as to the applicable legal standard. But she is incorrect; federal law controls in that regard. Second, although a violation of federal law can lead to a presumption of irreparable harm, "courts must analyze each statute separately to determine whether Congress intended to make 'a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice' and create a statutory presumption or categorical rule for the issuance of injunctive relief." Assuming without deciding that the court can apply the framework under federal law to a state statute, a close review of the text of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA does not reveal any indication that they were intended to create a statutory presumption or categorical rule for issuing injunctive relief when violations are established. Accordingly, Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiff has not carried her burden of demonstrating that she faces imminent irreparable harm. To the extent the Plaintiff argues that seeking public injunctive relief could remedy this deficiency, it is irrelevant because plaintiff lacks standing to seek such relief. Because the Plaintiff has not made the required showing of irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue. As a result, the Court need not address the Plaintiffs' showing with respect to her likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of equities, and whether the granting of an injunction is in the public interest. Because he will deny the Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief, Judge Drozd will also deny the Plaintiff's request to provisionally certify two putative classes without addressing Rule 23's requirements. In doing so, he does not suggest that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the Rule 23 class certification requirements with regard to the putative classes alleged in her FAC. IV. Conclusion For the reasons Judge Drozd explained, the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4zzdx2 from Leagle.com. JOANNA VARGAS: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOANNA VARGAS LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04799 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website joannavargas.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. Joanna Vargas Ltd. is an e-shop that offers a wide range of cosmetics, skincare products, gift cards and spa treatments.[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 JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., Greater Clark Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREATER CLARK COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03586 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Greater Clark County Schools is a community school corporation with its administrative offices located in Clark County, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., North Adam Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH ADAMS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03547 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. North Adams Community Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Decatur, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: City of Natchitoches Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF NATCHITOCHES, NATCHITOCHES PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03566-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Louisiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. City of Natchitoches is a school district with its administrative offices located at 700 Second Street, Natchitoches, Louisiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Elk Grove Unified Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., f/k/a PAX Labs, Inc., PLOOM Inc., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILLIP MORRIS USA INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV19876 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Elk Grove Unified School District is a unified school district with its administrative offices located in Sacramento, California. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Fiske, Esq. Jason J. Julius, Esq. Victoria E. Sherlin, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com jjulius@baronbudd.com tsherlin@baronbudd.com - and – Brian J. Panish, Esq. Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. Rachel Gezerseh, Esq. PANISH SHEA BOYLE RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@psblaw.com ravipudi@psblaw.com gezerseh@psblaw.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and – Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, North Central Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH CENTRAL PARKE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03544 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. North Central Parke Community School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Rockville, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces New Albany Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW ALBANY FLOYD COUNTY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03582-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. New Albany Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located in New Albany, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces Oak Hill Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- OAK HILL UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03551 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Oak Hill United School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located on Stadium Drive in Converse, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces Salem Community Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------- SALEM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03562 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Salem Community Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Salem, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Hamilton Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Ind. ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAMILTON SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03578 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Hamilton Southeastern Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Fishers, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Kokomo School Sues Over E-Cigarette Youth Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------- KOKOMO SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03568-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Kokomo School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Kokomo, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarettes to Youth, Jennings County Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNINGS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03584 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Jennings County School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located in North Vernon, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Pioneer Regional Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic ---------------------------------------------------------------- PIONEER REGIONAL SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03557 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Pioneer Regional School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices in Royal Center, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, White River Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHITE RIVER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., f/k/a PAX Labs, Inc., PLOOM Inc., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILLIP MORRIS USA INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03567-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. White River Valley School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Switz City, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Randolph Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDOLPH CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03558 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Randolph Central School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located on North East Street in Winchester, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Rochester Community Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03559 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Rochester Community School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Rochester, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Muncie Community Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MUNCIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03579 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Muncie Community Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Muncie, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, North Harrison Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03549 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. North Harrison Community Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Ramsey, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Castay Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES J. CASTAY, JR., husband of/and MARYBETH CASTAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01542, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00897-JFC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged products liability, manufacturing defect, and negligent design by manufacturing and selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices containing polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096 BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a company that manufactures and distributes medical systems and lighting appliances, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Walker, Esq. Thomas H. Huval, Esq. JONES FUSSELL, L.L.P. P.O. Box 1810 Covington, LA 70434 Telephone: (985) 246-7808 Facsimile: (985) 892-4925 E-mail: johnwalker@jonesfussell.com thuval@jonesfussell.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Gothard Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL GOTHARD, JEFFREY GROUDAN, GAIL GILLIARD-GUNTER, DON LUENEBRINK, ROBERT WAYBRIGHT, KENNETH DZIERZANOWSKI, TARA FIELDS, BARBARA SMITH, ROY FULTZ, ASHERDEE DIAMOND, DANNY BARAN, DEBBIE ROOTBERG, DIANE ANDERSON, JOHN RATLIFF, LULA MINNIFIELD, JULIE BARRETT, PETER BARRETT, DORIS MARGOLES, RYAN SCHWARTZ, HEIDI MCGUIRE, WILLIAM WILKS, GRADY TUCKER JR., JOHN YOUNG, DANNY DAVID, SUSANNE DENNIS, AARON TAYLOR, SONIA DIAZ, SUSAN WOODWARD, PATRICIA FLICK, JACK GIORDANO, RACHEL HOCK, VINCENT STEFANINI, JASON MCELYEA, JOHN MASINGTON, WILLIAM ANDERSON, RAUL DELEON, SARAH LOWNEY, PAUL PANZERA, ROSITA POLK, and ROBERT MATTERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS HOLDING USA INC., PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00906-JFC (W.D. Pa., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of usability, failure to warn, design defect, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, medical monitoring, and violation of several consumer protection laws in the U.S. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks associated with the use of these devices, the Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injuries, including substantial economic losses related to their purchase or lease of the recalled devices and accessories, and replacement machines and accessories, and losses from not being able to use their machines, and other consequential damages, says the suit. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096 BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips Holding USA Inc. is a holding company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Philips RS North America Holding Corporation is a wholly owned company by Philips Holding USA Inc., with its principal place of business at 222 Jacobs Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 152222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com - and – Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com - and – Sandra L. Duggan, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: sduggan@lfsblaw.com - and – Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and – Peter St. Tienne Wolff, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP One Oxford Centre - 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 263-2000 Facsimile: (412) 263-2001 E-mail: psw@pietragallo.com - and – D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and – Ron Anthony Austin, Esq. RON AUSTIN LAW, LLC 400 Manhattan Blvd. Harvey, LA 70058 Telephone: (504) 227-8100 Facsimile: (504) 227-8122 E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com - and – Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net - and – Kristina Anderson, Esq. HENSLEY LEGAL GROUP, PC 117 E. Washington Street, Ste. 200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 472-3333 E-mail: kanderson@hensleylegal.com - and – Joyce Chambers Reichard, Esq. KELLEY & FERRARO, LLP Ernst & Young Tower 950 Main Avenue, Ste 1300 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 575-0777 Facsimile: (216) 575-0799 E-mail: jreichard@kelley-ferraro.com - and – Claire E. Kreider, Esq. GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER L.L.C. 2800 Entergy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 522-2304 Facsimile: (504) 528-9973 E-mail: cberg@gainsben.com - and – Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-3500 E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com - and – Dena C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com - and – William M. Audet, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com - and – Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-3500 E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com LEXINGTON LAW: Moore TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN C. HEATH, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00027-TC-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class with respect to her claims against the Defendants John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC, DBA Lexington Law Firm, Progrexion Marketing, Inc., and Efolks, LLC, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; 2. designating her as class representative; and 3. designating her counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following proposed class: "All persons in the United States, for the time period beginning four years prior to the filling of this lawsuit through the date of final approval, whose telephone was acquired by the Defendants through the websites, and who were transmitted a prerecorded voice call containing the following message: Hi, this is Lexington Law Firm. Recently you requested a free credit consultation, and I was calling to follow-up. Lexington Law has helped hundreds of thousands of people work yo repair their credit, and we would like to see if we can help you too. Call us back at 602-4747-2454. That's 602-474-2454." The Lexington Law credit repair firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OoMjaY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MAJOR MODEL: Burgess Can't File Class Proof of Claim, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: MAJOR MODEL MANAGEMENT INC., Chapter 11, Subchapter V, Debtor, Case No. 22-10169 (MG) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Motion to permit creditor Jasmine Burgess to file a class proof of claim. I. Introduction The issue pending before the Court is whether to permit a creditor to file a class proof of claim under Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Class proofs of claim in bankruptcy cases are an exception to the normal procedures in bankruptcy cases that require individual creditors to file separate proofs of claim. If a creditor agrees with the scheduled amount of a claim and it is not listed as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated, no proof of claim needs to be filed; the claim is deemed allowed and will be entitled to a distribution in any confirmed plan of reorganization. See FED. R. BANKR. P 3003(c)(2) (detailing who must file a proof of claim). Bankruptcy courts retain discretion to permit class proofs of claim pursuant to Rule 7023. But applying Rule 7023 to permit class proofs of claim is not an absolute right; many of the policy factors supporting class actions are absent in bankruptcy proceedings -- specifically, the costly barriers to litigation are reduced in the claims allowance process (i.e., proof-of-claim forms are accessible, free and easy to fill out, and a claimant does not need to obtain counsel to submit a proof of claim). Many courts have observed that class certification may be less desirable in bankruptcy than in ordinary civil litigation. The bankruptcy claims resolution process allows creditors to assert claims cheaply and efficiently in a single forum without the expense of retaining counsel unless the creditor chooses to do so. A bankruptcy court must decide in the exercise of discretion whether a class proof of claim would be superior to the claims allowance process. In the present case, Judge Glenn concludes that the creditors holding disputed, contingent or unliquidated claims must file separate proofs of claim and, unless consensually resolved, any contested issues regarding their claims must be resolved in the claims allowance process. II. Background Pending before the Court is the motion of Jasmine Burgess, seeking entry of an order pursuant to Rule 7023 and Rule 9014 of the Bankruptcy Rules, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizing Burgess to file a class proof of claim against Major Model with respect to her late payment claim and her breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Debtor. Burgess asserted those claims in a prepetition lawsuit, Burgess v. Major Model Management, No. 20-cv-2816 (the "Burgess Litigation"), currently pending in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Burgess Litigation names Major Model and its President, Guido Dolci ("Dolci"), as Defendants. In support of the Motion, Burgess filed a declaration by her attorney Cyrus E. Dugger. The operative second amended complaint from the Burgess Litigation is annexed to the Dugger Declaration. On Feb. 11, 2022 the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 relief under Subchapter V. On March 10, 2022, the Court granted the Debtor's motion to assume 35 of its current models' modeling contracts, along with the cure amounts in order to assume the contracts. On Feb. 26, 2022, the Debtor filed its schedules of creditors who have unsecured claims. This was amended several times with the most recently amended version filed on April 21, 2022. On April 3, 2020, prior to the Petition Date, Burgess commenced the Burgess Litigation against the Debtor and Dolci in the District Court. Burgess amended the complaint twice to include (i) class-wide claims alleging independent contractor misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), (ii) individual retaliation claims under FLSA and NYLL for a retaliatory lawsuit, and (iii) a class-wide breach of fiduciary duty claim under New York common law On March 16, 2022, Burgess moved the Court to lift the stay to permit her to prosecute the Burgess Litigation in the District Court against the Debtor, thereby bypassing the bankruptcy claims allowance process. She asserted that the Burgess Litigation was ready for a motion for summary judgment and would have been ready for trial but for the Debtor dragging its feet in responding to discovery requests and court orders. A hearing was held on April 21, 2022, and the Court denied the Lift Stay Motion without prejudice. The Debtor's business model is as follows: First, the Debtor asks a model whether she would like to handle a job for a customer, typically via an email confirming the job's rate. Second, it issues an invoice to the customer for work performed by the model, which is set forth on the Debtor's Quickbooks (both as an open invoice and on the model's account). Third, the Debtor receives payment from the customer and the Debtor subtracts its 20% fee plus other fees advanced on behalf of the model. Fourth, it generally remits payment to the model three weeks from its receipt from the customer. It typically advises the model when payment is received from the client on a weekly basis, and models commonly inquire about payment. The Debtor states that there are times when a payment from a customer is not promptly remitted to a model, often due to the model changing their bank account information without informing it. Ms. Burgess proposes to file and seek certification of a class proof of claim as defined in the Second Amended Complaint. She proposes two classes which have purported causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the Debtor: (1) a class seeking equitable remedies, defined as persons who signed modeling contracts from April 3, 2014 to Jan. 1, 2020, which the Debtor estimates as approximately 465 models; and (2) a class seeking monetary remedies, defined as persons who signed modeling contracts from April 3, 2017 to Jan. 1, 2020, which the Debtor estimates as approximately 185 models. Ms. Burgess asserts that she and the respective class members are entitled to the equitable remedy of: (1) a constructive trust of the approximately $1 million that is currently owed to them; (2) payment of disgorgement of Debtor's ill-gotten profits/gains because of its breach of fiduciary duty for (at least) the approximately $1 million amount plus 9% interest; and (3) punitive damages of at least the same amount as actual damages. Ms. Burgess represents that both causes of action are based on the fiduciary duty the Debtor owed to models which arose from power of attorney clauses in the Debtor's form modeling agreement. She argues that because the Debtor made no payment and/or late payments to its models, the Debtor had breached its fiduciary duty. She asserts that sources supporting that the Debtor owed a fiduciary duty to Burgess and the putative class include: (i) the Hoffman Proceeding, where the Debtor was sued over a data breach of models' personal identifiable information ("PII") and Judge Swain concluded that the complaint in that case adequately alleged that the attorney-in-fact relationship created by the contracts between Major Model and the models created a fiduciary duty protecting the models' PII from disclosure to third parties; (ii) the Debtor's compensation policies; and (iii) the Debtor's collection of commission fees. On May 6, 2022, the Debtor filed its proposed plan of reorganization. The Debtor asserts its Plan proposes to pay administrative expenses and priority claims from funds on hand as of the Plan's effective date. It states that it will pay allowed unsecured claims from available cash flow generated by its operations over a period of three years, and, assuming its projections are correct, creditors should receive payment of 100% of their allowed claims. III. Discussion In In re Musicland Holding Corp., 362 B.R. 644, 652 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 2007), several factors (the "Musicland Factors") inform a court's decision whether to extend the application of Rule 23 to a proof of claim, including: "(1) whether the class was certified pre-petition; (2) whether the members of the putative class received notice of the bar date; and (3) whether class certification will adversely affect the administration of the estate." Some courts have focused on the first two factors only -- i.e., prepetition certification and notice of the bar date. Under Rule 23(a), four prerequisites must be met for a suit to proceed as a class action: "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Federal courts must "conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether the Rule 23 requirements have been satisfied prior to certifying a class." Additionally, the representative must meet one of the three criteria outlined in Rule 23(b). Rule 23(b)(3), which is implicated by the pleadings, allows a class action to proceed if: The court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominant over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. A. The Court Will Not Exercise Its Discretion to Apply Rule 23 Judge Glenn opines that Burgess did not satisfy her burden for the Court to exercise its discretion to permit a class proof of claim because (i) the class was not certified pre-petition despite ample opportunity to do so, (ii) there is sufficient notice that complies with the Bankruptcy Code to potential class members per the Bar Date Order, (iii) class certification would adversely affect the administration of the estate, and (iv) there is no need to certify the class for the purposes of deterring the Debtor from engaging in withholding funds to models. Judge Glenn believes the claims allowance process provides an efficient mechanism for resolving any legally or factually disputed claims in the case. The Musicland factors inform a court's decision whether to exercise discretion to extend the application of Rule 23 for a class proof of claim. A court sitting in bankruptcy may decline to apply Rule 23 if doing so would 'gum up the works' of distributing the estate." In looking at the Musicland Factors, Judge Glenn finds that each factor weighs against exercising discretion to permit a class proof of claim. As to the first factor -- the lack of prepetition class certification -- the Debtor is correct that there is no discernible reason why Burgess could not have made the application before the District Court prior to the Petition Date. As to the second factor -- whether class members received notice of the bar date -- the Debtor acted appropriately to inform models who could be affected by the Bar Date Order and even exceeded the requirements of the Bar Date Order by emailing 530 models in addition to using regular mail. With respect to the final factor -- whether the administration of the estate will be adversely affected -- the claims allowance process is the most efficient, cost-effective mechanism to address any disputed claims in the case, and certifying a class claim would adversely affect the administration of the Debtor's bankruptcy case. Judge Glenn holds that the Debtor is correct that nothing has been brought forth to indicate the Debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith or as a litigation tactic to stall discovery. Thus far, only Burgess has made protestations in her Lift Stay Motion and this Motion that this bankruptcy was a means to stall litigation. There has been no motion seeking to dismiss this case citing bad faith as a basis. Additionally, Burgess ignores the appointment of the Subchapter V trustee who has a fiduciary duty to ensure compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, it is not ncessary to deter the Debtor via certifying a class proof of claim. B. Even If the Court Exercised its Discretion, Burgess Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23 Rule 23 requires four prerequisites for a class action to proceed: "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." In the case, Judge Glenn finds that Burgess satisfies element 1 (numerosity), but does not satisfy elements 2 (commonality), 3 (typicality) and 4 (adequacy of representation). First, given that members for each putative class exceeds 40 members, Burgess clearly satisfied Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement. Second, the Debtor articulated multiple scenarios and reasons why certain models were not timely paid which negates Burgess' contention that common issues of law and fact are implicated and indicates that each putative class member needs to be evaluated individually. Third, Burgess was represented by at least three modeling agencies when the Debtor represented her. That alone renders her claims atypical of putative class members because it is unclear if putative class members were also represented by multiple agencies when the Debtor represented them. Fourth, the facts surrounding Burgess' claim preclude her from adequately representing the proposed class. Judge Glenn further finds that the Debtor is correct that each model's claim in the putative class will require a mini analysis before permitting each alleged class member into the class proof of claim. There are likely unique circumstances behind why each model who could potentially be a member of the proposed class was initially denied payment or why payment was delayed. Each putative class member may not necessarily have the same issue or facts predominating over their individual claim. To the extent that common factual or legal issues exist, the claims allowance process can be tailored to deal efficiently with those common issues in resolving disputed claims. Therefore, the legal and factual issues presented do not predominate over the claims of the putative class members. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he explained, Judge Glenn denies the Motion to permit Burgess to file a class proof of claim. Any disputed claims will have to be resolved in the claims allowance process. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r86vemfc from Leagle.com. THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC, By: Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. -- cd@theduggerlawfirm.com -- in Long Island City, New York, Attorneys for Jasmine Burgess, et al. NORRIS McLAUGHLIN, P.A., By: Melissa A. Pena, Esq. -- mapena@norris-law.com -- Anthony D'Elia, Esq. -- adelia@norris-law.com -- in Bridgewater, New Jersey, Attorneys for the Debtor. HEIDI J. SORVINO, ESQ. -- sorvinoh@whiteandwilliams.com -- Subchapter V Trustee White & Williams LLP, in New York City. MARCUS POLLARD: Fitzgerald Must file Class Cert Bid by July 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. MARCUS POLLARD; Lieutenant C. MOORE; Sargeant H. CRUZ; Officer JACKSON; Officer LITTLE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nita L. Stormes entered an order granting in part and denying in part second joint motion for extension of time to complete class discovery and to file for class certification as follows: 1. The deadline for completion of class discovery is June 30, 2022. 2. Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by July 15, 2022. -- The opposition to this motion is due July 29, 2022. -- The reply is due August 5, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yfY8dI at no extra charge.[CC] MATCH GROUP: Modified Sealing Order Entered in Benouis ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIR ALI CHERIF BENOUIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MATCH GROUP, INC., AMANDA W. GINSBERG, and GARY SWIDLER, Case No. 3:19-cv-02356-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered an order: 1. granting the joint motion to modify sealing order to allow Ex Parte Filings; and 2. modifying the Court's June 16, 2022 to allow the parties to file documents containing Confidential Discovery Information through the ex parte feature on ECF, with unredacted copies to be served via email. All other provisions in the June 16, 2022, Order and in the Protective Order shall remain in effect; Match Group is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OoMG5m at no extra charge.[CC] MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY SONNEVELDT, ESTHER WRIGHT SCHNEIDER, BRIAN HUME, JEAN LEVASSEUR, CHRISTOPHER LACASSE, BETH PICKERD, DAN PICKERD, TIM HALWAS, ERIN MATHENY, LEWIS DELVECCHIO, JON SOWARDS, LAWRENCE BOHANA, MONIKA BOHANA, DAVID DENNIS, and JACQUELINE S. ASLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS and MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an application for leave to file under seal their reply in support of their motion for class certification. Mazda North American Operations, which includes Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is Mazda Motor Corporation's North American arm, and constitutes the largest component of that company outside Japan. The company has its headquarters in Irvine, California and is headed by Masahiro Moro. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OZtawj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law cleofe@kiesel.law - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com - and - Robert M. Rothman, Esq. Francis P. Karam, Esq. Philip T. Merenda, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com fkaram@rgrdlaw.com pmerenda@rgrdlaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. Miller Building 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@miller.law ssa@miller.law - and - John C. Goodson, Esq. Matt Keil, Esq. KEIL & GOODSON P.A. 406 Walnut Street Texarkana, AR 71854 Telephone: (870) 772-4113 Facsimile: (870) 773-2967 E-mail: jgoodson@kglawfirm.com mkeil@kglawfirm.com - and - Robert H. Edwards, Esq. THE EDWARDS FIRM, P.L.L.C. 711 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1329 E-mail: bob@bobedwardslaw.com MEDZED LLC: Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARK JOHN SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDZED, LLC; MEDZED PHYSICIAN SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 22STCV15585, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04146 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime hours; failure to provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof; waiting time penalties; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to provide legally compliant itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses; and unfair competition. MedZed, LLC is a health care service company based in Georgia. MedZed Physician Services, Inc. is a home health care service in Culver City, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christina T. Tellado, Esq. Samuel J. Stone, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-2400 Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 E-mail: christina.tellado@hklaw.com sam.stone@hklaw.com META PLATFORMS: Agrees to Pay $90-M to Users in Privacy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenClassActions.com reports that Facebook has agreed to pay $90,000,000 to Facebook users whose data was tracked and improperly collected when visiting non-Facebook websites. The settled class action lawsuit alleges that Facebook obtained and collected data from Facebook users in the United States who visited non-Facebook websites that displayed the Facebook Like button. Those external sites allowed Facebook to collect data from Facebook users even while they were not on Facebook.com without user consent. Similar class action settlements and lawsuits have been in the news lately. One of these is an ongoing Google Privacy Class Action Settlement, and an even larger Facebook biometric data class action settlement that was paid out in April 2022. Claim Form Deadline: September 22, 2022 Payout: Estimated $50 - $300 Proof required: No Method of payment: Mailed Check / Prepaid Card / PayPal / Venmo / Zelle How Do I Qualify? The Facebook Tracking Class Action Settlement includes anyone who, between April 22, 2010 and September 26, 2011 visited non-Facebook websites that displayed a Facebook 'Like' button (similar to the one up top here!). Do I need Proof to Get Paid? You don't need proof to participate. However, if you do provide your facebook username, email or URL from your profile, it will raise your chances of being paid. You can provide your username, or the URL from your Facebook profiles for accounts you may have used between April 22, 2010 and September 26, 2011. This will make it easier and increase the chance of the Settlement Administrator finding your account. If you cannot remember your username, leave it blank and the administrator will try to locate your account based on the other information on this form). You will need to provide your email that is associated with your facebook account as part of the claim form. How Do I Find My Facebook Username? Facebook usernames help people find your public Facebook profile more easily. Your Facebook username will result in a public URL link that will look something like: You can find your username under the triangular dropdown menu in Facebook: * Click on 'Settings and Privacy', * Next, click on 'General Settings' * You will find your username under the General Account Settings page listing your name, username and other account details. How Much Can I Get? If the Settlement is approved by the Court, it will establish a Settlement Fund of $90 Million to pay out people who join the class action settlement by submitting timely and valid claim forms. The money from the settlement fund will then be proportionally divided between those class action members. We are estimating this based on similar past cases to be in the $50 to $300 range. How Do I File a Claim? To receive your cash reward you must timely submit a claim form. You can do it online or printed and mailed by September 22, 2022 to the Settlement Administrator at: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation c/o Administrator 1650 Arch Street Suite 2210, Philadelphia PA 19103. The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing at 9:00 a.m. PST on October 27, 2022 by video conference with Zoom, it may be accessed HERE. Claim Form Website: http://FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com/[GN] META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit for Mining Patient Healthcare Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- Health Care Dive reports that tech giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook, was slammed with a class action lawsuit alleging that the social media company has been scouring sensitive patient data from hospital websites in violation of HIPAA and numerous state and federal laws. The lawsuit, filed in Northern California, charges that Meta's Pixel tracking tool sent patient data like IP addresses, online portal login information and health conditions directly back to the company. Filed by a John Doe on behalf of "millions of other Americans whose medical privacy has been violated by Facebook's Pixel," the suit follows an investigative report published last week by The Markup and Stat News that found the top 33 hospitals in the U.S. were sending sensitive patient data to Meta via the Pixel tracking tool. The lawsuit identified at least 644 hospital systems or "medical provider web properties" from which Facebook allegedly "knowingly receives patient data" to create targeted advertising both on and off of Facebook's website. It further alleges that the company did not attempt to gain "patient knowledge, consent, or valid HIPAA authorizations." A copy of the lawsuit is available at https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/06/20/meta_class_action_propsoed_suit.pdf Facebook's Pixel is a piece of code that allows websites to target and optimize advertisements for users. That data is often tied back to specific users. It's also not the first time that the tech giant has been accused of mining patient healthcare data. In 2016, three Facebook users filed a class action lawsuit against the company and several medical organizations alleging that Facebook had collected health data and used it without consent for marketing profiles to target advertisements. A judge ruled in Facebook's favor in May 2017 and the plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal. "This is an extreme example of exactly how far the tentacles of Big Tech reach into what we think of as a protected data space," Nicholson Price, a University of Michigan law professor told The Markup. "I think this is creepy, problematic, and potentially illegal" from the hospitals' point of view. Plaintiffs' attorneys: Paul R. Kiesel kiesel@kiesel.law Jeffrey A. Koncius koncius@kiesel.law Nicole Ramirez ramirez@kiesel.law KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Tel: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 - and - Jason 'Jay' Barnes jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com An Truong atruong@simmonsfirm.com Eric Johnson ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 784-6400 Fax: (212) 213-5949 - and - Stephen M. Gorny steve@gornylawfirm.com GORNY DANDURAND, LC 4330 Belleview Avenue, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel: 816-756-5071 Fax: 816-756-5067 - and - Amy Gunn agunn@simonlawpc.com THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market St., Ste. 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: 314-241-2929 Fax: 314-241-2029 [GN] META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Fripp, writing for Komando.com, reports that social media giant Facebook is no stranger to controversy. Earlier this year, parent company Meta settled a seven-year class-action suit for allegedly collecting and storing the biometric data of users without their consent. Facebook users in Illinois went to court, stating that Tag Suggestions and other facial recognition features violated the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act. Tap or click here to find out if you're eligible for a nearly $400 payment. While that was limited to Illinois residents, another lawsuit includes more people. You may Like this Known as In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation case, the class-action suit accuses Facebook of "improperly obtaining and collecting data" through third-party websites with a Facebook Like button. The technicalities behind the data collection aren't clear, but it allegedly happened between April 22, 2010 and September 26, 2011. If you're a U.S citizen and browsed through websites with a Like button during that time, the lawsuit can include you. While Facebook has denied any wrongdoing, it chose to settle the matter outside of court before it went to trial, where a judge will rule on the merits. The settlement amount is pegged at $90 million. Submit your claim for a piece of the Facebook settlement You must meet the following criteria to be eligible for inclusion and subsequent payout: -- You were a Facebook User in the United States from April 22, 2010 through September 26, 2011. -- You visited non-Facebook websites that displayed the Facebook Like button. You may submit a claim if you can prove the above. It's impossible to tell how much you can get at this stage in the lawsuit, as the final payout will depend on the number of claims submitted and additional fees. All settlement class members will be paid in equal amounts. You have until September 22, 2022 to file a claim. Submit your Claim Form online or download the claim form and mail it to the Settlement Administrator. For more information, contact the Settlement Administrator by email at info@FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com or by phone at 844-665-0905. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Unlawfully Collects Patients' Data on Facebook -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03580 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, intrusion upon seclusion-constitutional invasion of privacy, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the medical privacy of the Plaintiff and similarly situated Americans through improper use of Facebook's Pixel tracking tool on hospital websites. The use of Pixel tracking tool resulted in the wrongful, contemporaneous, re-direction to Facebook of patient communications to register as a patient, sign-in or out of a supposedly secure patient portal, request or set appointments, or call their provider via their computing device. This unlawful collection of data is done without the knowledge or authorization of the patient, like the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive practices, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered an injury in fact, including the loss of money and/or property, the suit asserts. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and – Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. An Truong, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com - and – Stephen M. Gorny, Esq. GORNY DANDURAND, LC 4330 Belleview Avenue, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 756-5071 Facsimile: (816) 756-5067 E-mail: steve@gornylawfirm.com - and – Amy Gunn, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market St., Ste. 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: agunn@simonlawpc.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Terminates Class Cert Bid in Stromberg ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STROMBERG v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09288 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order that the Plaintiffs motion for class certification is administratively terminated for docket management purposes only. The Court will first address the pending motion for class certification in Filgueiras v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al. Case No 16-3037, which involves the same defendants. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit. Midland purchases debts from credit card companies, banks, auto loan companies, and just about any other type of financial service.[CC] MOUNT HOLLY, NC: Denial of Relief From Final Order Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BROOKLINE HOMES, LLC, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MOUNT HOLLY, Defendant, Case No. COA21-514 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirms the trial court's order denying Plaintiff Brookline Homes' motion for relief from final order. I. Background The Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order denying its motion for relief from final order on the basis of excusable neglect, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff is a North Carolina builder and developer in the Gaston County area. On March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff, acting as the class representative for "itself and others similarly situated who constructed or developed any structure in Mount Holly," filed a class-action complaint against the City of Mount Holly. Itff sought certification of the class and its appointment as its representative, and alleged that the City acted beyond the scope of its authority by charging unlawful impact fees as such were defined by the state Supreme Court in Quality Built Homes, Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 369 N.C. 15, 789 S.E.2d 454 (2016). More specifically, the Plaintiff asserted that the City unlawfully exacted impact fees through the imposition of "water and sewer taps and System Development Fees." The City filed an answer and motion to dismiss on May 28, 2019. The parties subsequently executed a settlement agreement. Among other things, the parties agreed that "the City would establish a Settlement Fund equal to $483,468"; that "the City would pay claims from the Fund to all Settlement Claimants, 60 days from the Effective Date"; that all claims "must be postmarked on or before the Claim Form Deadline," which the parties later set as Dec. 29, 2020; and that "any remaining funds in the Settlement Fund will revert to the City." By the terms of the Agreement, the Plaintiff was scheduled to receive a $5,000 "service award" for serving as the class representative, and had an approximately $115,000 claim against the City. The trial court granted preliminary approval of the Agreement on July 21, 2020. The Plaintiff received a Class Action Settlement Notice and Claim Form dated Aug. 3, 2020, which provided that all claims "must be mailed so that they are postmarked no later than Dec. 20, 2020." On Aug. 12, 2020, the Plaintiff's company president emailed its counsel about the form, writing, "I received this in the mail (the claim form) yesterday. Do I need to do anything with this? I thought we are finished." Plaintiff's counsel replied on 17 August 2020: "Nothing needed further. We have our final hearing coming up in September and will keep you apprised." Through this reply, the Plaintiff's counsel intended to convey that the Plaintiff "had no further obligations as the class representative"; the counsel had "assumed that the Plaintiff would submit the claim form by the deadline." However, the Plaintiff's president interpreted the counsel's response to mean that the president "didn't need to do anything because the Plaintiff was the claimant" in the lawsuit. The claims administrator mailed the Plaintiff a reminder of the claim deadline on Nov. 23, 2020. On Oct. 12 2020, the trial court entered an order granting final approval of the Agreement. The court also certified the class for settlement purposes, granted the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, and awarded the Plaintiff $5,000 from the settlement fund as compensation for serving as the class representative. The trial court ordered that the parties follow the terms of the Agreement, thereby solidifying Dec. 20, 2020 as the filing deadline for all claims. On Dec. 11, 2020, nine days before the claim-filing deadline, the claims administrator informed the Plaintiff's counsel that only three members of the class had submitted their claims; the Plaintiff was not one of them. When the Plaintiff ultimately submitted its claim on Jan. 13, 2021, nearly one month after the Dec. 20, 2020 deadline, the City refused to satisfy the untimely claim. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff still received its $5,000 service award from the City on Jan. 26, 2021, one month after the award payment was due. On April 19, 2021, roughly two weeks after the City satisfied all timely claims, the Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis of excusable neglect, seeking relief from the trial court's Oct. 12,2020 final order. In its motion, the Plaintiff asserted that the email exchange with its counsel in August 2020 created a "mistaken belief that it did not need to submit a claim in the litigation because it was the class representative," and that counsel "did not discover this confusion until the claims period had lapsed." The Plaintiff requested that the trial court consider its claim timely and order the City to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim. The matter came on for hearing on May 17, 2021 in Gaston County Superior Court. The Plaintiff's counsel argued that the Plaintiff's confusion regarding the claim submission was understandable given its inexperience with class actions. The counsel further argued that the Plaintiff's mistake regarding the filing "was reasonable given the fact that the City had not paid the service award timely and it believed that its claim and the service award would have all been paid at the same time." Moreover, the counsel asserted that "had the City paid the service award on time, the Plaintiff would have realized that it needed to submit a claim, as the service award represented only $5,000 out of the approximately $120,000 that the Plaintiff was owed" under the Agreement. Finally, the Plaintiff contended that the City would not be prejudiced by allowing the late claim, in that the City had already established the settlement fund and was prepared to pay the entire amount. In response, the City argued that the Plaintiff's failure to timely submit its claim was not the result of excusable neglect, but rather due to the Plaintiff and its counsel "not paying attention." As the City's counsel argued, this inattention was evidenced in part by the fact that the Plaintiff's "counsel was aware nine days before the deadline and after two notices to their client that a claim had not been filed by them, yet they took absolutely no action." Moreover, the City claimed that it would be prejudiced by the grant of the Plaintiff's motion because it "would have to pay out the additional $115,000 which the City was entitled to retain as unclaimed funds pursuant to the Agreement. Finally, the City challenged whether a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) was the appropriate vehicle for requesting the type of relief sought by the Plaintiff. On May 19, 2021, after considering "the pleadings, affidavits, other materials filed, and the arguments of counsel," the trial court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion. The order contained no findings of fact. The Plaintiff timely filed notice of appeal. II. Discussion Rule 60(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." On appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its Rule 60(b)(1) motion because its failure to submit a claim by the claim-form deadline was the result of excusable neglect. After careful review, the Court of Appeals disagrees. The Court of Appeals opines that the evidence in the record demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Plaintiff's motion for relief from the court's Oct. 12, 2020 final order. The Plaintiff received multiple claims notices well before the deadline, and the Plaintiff's counsel was aware that the Plaintiff had not yet filed a claim as of Dec. 11, 2020, nine days before the deadline. Nevertheless, out of "confusion" and miscommunication with the counsel, the Plaintiff filed its claim almost a month after the Dec. 20, 2020 deadline had passed, and filed its Rule 60(b)(1) motion almost four months after the deadline. Additionally, the trial court entered an order preliminarily approving the Agreement on July 21, 2020, giving claimants months within which to submit their claims before the agreed-upon filing deadline of Dec. 20, 2020. Because the parties negotiated the terms of the Agreement and set the deadlines themselves, there was evidence to support a determination by the trial court that the Plaintiff did not have an adequate "reason for the delay," and that the filing of its claim was entirely "within the Plaintiff's reasonable control." Furthermore, at the hearing, the City argued that the Plaintiff's failure to meet the claims submission deadline did not constitute excusable neglect because the Plaintiff and its counsel "simply were not paying attention." Although the Plaintiff's counsel asserted that the Plaintiff's president misunderstood the email exchange, leading the president to believe that he "didn't need to do anything" further with regard to the lawsuit, the trial court nonetheless could have found the City's argument persuasive based on the lack of extenuating circumstances, the four-month delay in filing the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, and the multiple notices received. As such, the trial court may have determined that the Plaintiff's late claim was the result of attorney negligence, which is insufficient to establish excusable neglect, and the evidence in the record could sustain such a determination. Because "there is evidence in the record sustaining findings which the trial court could have made to support its order" denying the Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(1) motion, the Court of Appeals opines that the trial court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion was not "manifestly unsupported by reason" or "so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Accordingly, it must affirm the trial court's order. Having so concluded, it need not address the remaining arguments on appeal. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's order denying the Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from the Oct. 12, 2020 final order on the basis of excusable neglect. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2yzx79tn from Leagle.com. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, by Daniel K. Bryson -- dbryson@milberg.com -- Scott C. Harris -- sharris@milberg.com -- and J. Hunter Bryson -- hbryson@milberg.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant Brookline Homes, LLC. Hamilton Stephens Steele + Martin, PLLC, by Keith J. Merritt -- kmerritt@lawhssm.com -- for Defendant-Appellee City of Mount Holly. NEW PRIME: Amended Scheduling & Trial Order Entered in Nyachira --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER NYACHIRA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, v. NEW PRIME, INC., Case No. 21-03211-CV-S-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an amended scheduling and trial order as follows: 1. This case is scheduled for a jury Jan. 22, 2024 trial, commencing at 8:30 a.m., on: 2. A teleconference is set at Dec. 29, 2023 10:00 a.m., on: 3. A final pretrial conference in Jan. 12, 2024 this case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on: 4. The deadline for joint filing July 27, 2022 regarding notice to agreed-upon group and proposed notice dissemination plan and schedule shall be: 5. The deadline to file the motion July 28, 2022 for class certification is: The deadline to file opposition Sept. 16, 2022 to the motion for class certification is: 6. All pretrial discovery authorized April 26, 2023 by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before: 7. All dispositive motions, except June 1, 2023 those under Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before: New Prime provides trucking transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ndABUx at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Bid to Certify Putative Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELCY MABEL GARCIA DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-05005-CM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed putative class and to appoint class plaintiff and class counsel. The Court said, "The plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(a) or (b). The motion for class certification and appointment of class plaintiff and class counsel is, therefore, denied. Because this case cannot be maintained as a class action -- and certainly not by Plaintiff – the lone basis for federal jurisdiction disappears. For that reason, the complaint must be dismissed, albeit without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to bring her claim in a state court of competent jurisdiction. There remains in this case a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel – Edward Toptani and his law firm Toptani Law PPLC and Eric M. Poulin, Roy T. Willey, IV, Blake G. Abbott, and Jarrett W. Withrow and their firm Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC -- which will be fully briefed on July 1, 2022. So while the complaint is dismissed, the Clerk of Court cannot yet close the matter. It remains on this court's docket for the sole purpose of deciding that motion." On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Nelcy Mabel Garcia De Lepn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint bringing this putative class action against Defendant New York University alleging breach of its contractual obligations to provide in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and activities in connection with the University's decision to modify, curtail, and cancel its activities for the spring 2020 semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for certain violations of the New York General Business Laws ("NYGBL") seeking a pro-rata refund of tuition and fees. The coronavirus arrived in New York City in early March 2020. In accordance with state and local requirements imposed to “flatten the curve” and stop the spread of the disease, universities throughout the country moved classes online and curtailed and/or canceled in-person activities and on-campus services. These institutions have been met with an onslaught of lawsuits seeking partial refunds of the tuition and fees that students pre-paid, allegedly for in-person learning and other, non-academic services. NYU is a private research university in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMUoUe at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Kamisirides Estate Sues Over Hazardous Subway Entrances ----------------------------------------------------------------- HRISSANTHI KAMISIRIDES as Administratix of the Estate of ETSTATHIOS KAMISIRIDIS, Deceased and HRISSANTHI KAMISIRIDES, Individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION AT BELLEVUE HOSPITAL, and "JOHN DOE" AND "JANE DOE," FICTITIOUS NAMES USED TO REPRESENT MEDICAL DOCTORS, REGISTERED NURSES, EMRGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND/OR NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION AT BELLEVUE HOSPITAL, Case No. 712131/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' negligence, carelessness and recklessness after Etstathios Kamisiridis suffered a fall as a result of a dangerous, hazardous and unsafe staircase, causing him to sustain grievous personal injuries leading to his death. Defendant The City of New York is one of the owners of the West 40th Street and Broadway, New York NY -- subway station entrance, including its staircases, fixtures and appurtenances adjacent thereto, in the County of New York, City and State of New York. According to the complaint, the Defendants caused and created said dangerous, defective and unsafe conditions. Decendent Kamisirides was severely injured and damaged, rendered sick, sore, nervous, and disabled, sustained severe nervous shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset; incurred hospital and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and was unable to pursue usual duties up to the date of death, all to the plaintiffs' great damage, says the suit. The complaint further alleges that the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff's Decedent, were caused solely by Defendants' negligence, medical malpractice and departures from good and accepted standards of care. The personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff's Decedent including untimely death and wrongful death, occurred as a result of the negligence and medical malpractice on the part of the defendant, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation at Bellevue Hospital, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert R. Matuza, Jr., Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 746-3440 NEW YORK: Settles Public Assistance Class Action for $22 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- BK Reader reports that hundreds of New Yorkers every day are forced to miss work, either because they are sick or a death in the family or an injury or a sudden loss of child care… Unfortunately, if you are on public assistance, a failure to show you have worked a minimum number of hours each week can result in a loss of your public assistance, even if you have one of these legitimate excuses. And that's exactly what happened: Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers saw their public assistance ended or reduced for experiencing the same work-life issues their more wealthier counterparts experience every day - with the only difference being they had the audacity to be poor. So, with the help of The Legal Aid Society, a group of them got together and filed a class action law suit. And on June 16, the Legal Aid Society announced a $22 million class action settlement with the City and State to 54,280 New Yorkers who received public assistance and whose benefits were wrongfully reduced or stopped between 2007 and 2015 due to alleged violations of employment requirements that mandate recipients seek and maintain work. Filed in April 2010, Smith, et. al. v. Proud, et. al. was brought by Legal Aid and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP against the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) and the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA). Under the settlement, the City and State restored benefits to recipients after a court found that plaintiffs presented viable claims that the sanctions were unlawful and were imposed without adequate notice to class members to be able to show they had a legitimate reason to miss work. The total payments issued amounted to $22,161,369.00 to 54,280 eligible class members in New York City. Additionally, any sanction that had been imposed during the covered time period was removed from the recipients' sanction history. After discovering that the City and State failed to issue payments to all eligible individuals, the litigation team returned to court to enforce the settlement. A remaining 5,000 individuals received their payments on May 8, 2022. In order to be eligible to receive a payment under the settlement, a class member must have an open Cash Assistance case and must have been sanctioned between July 8, 2007 and December 22, 2015. "We are proud of the years of advocacy and litigation that went into getting our clients and all New Yorkers who are on public assistance and were unlawfully sanctioned some justice," said Les Helfman, senior staff attorney in the Brooklyn Neighborhood Office of The Legal Aid Society. "The benefit levels that recipients receive are not enough to pay rent and meet basic needs to begin with, but when families were sanctioned, they were pushed even deeper into poverty. This settlement provides compensation for the neediest of these clients." [GN] OLIN CORP: E.D. Missouri Dismisses Riley Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MALIKA RILEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01328-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Clark of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. I. Introduction The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 imposes a duty of loyalty on fiduciaries of certain investment plans. Malika Riley and Takeeya Sharonte Reliford participated in one such plan through their employer, Olin. Believing that Olin, Olin's board, and the plan's investment committee breached their fiduciary duties, Riley and Reliford filed the class-action lawsuit. The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint against them, arguing that the complaint's allegations, even if true, fail to state a claim. II. Background Created in 1964 by the Olin, the "Olin Corporation Contributing Employee Ownership Plan," an "individual account plan" or "defined contribution plan" under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(34), establishes various investment accounts for participating Olin employees. Olin and its board appointed an investment committee to serve as the plan's named fiduciary regarding investment and management of plan assets, while a separate administrative committee serves as the plan's administrator and as a named fiduciary in all matters other than investment and management of plan assets. Voya International Trust Co. serves as the plan's trustee and custodian for most of the plan's investments, and Voya International Plan Services keeps records for the plan. At the end of 2019, the plan held over $930 million in net assets and had over 7,000 participants. Plaintiffs Riley and Sharonte Reliford both participated in the plan during their employment with Olin. The complaint alleges in count 1 that the investment committee breached its fiduciary duty of prudence and in count 2 that Olin and its board failed to adequately monitor the investment committee. In support of count 1, the complaint contends that the investment committee failed to adequately monitor the plan's recordkeeping expenses, failed to prudently select investment options because of excessive investment fees, and retained at least one underperforming fund in the plan. Thus, alleges the complaint, "the totality of circumstances demonstrate that the plan fiduciaries failed to administer the plan in a prudent manner." In support of their specific contention that the investment committee fails to control the plan's "recordkeeping expenses," "a catchall term for the suite of administrative services typically provided to a defined contribution plan by the plan's 'recordkeeper,'" Riley and Reliford make several allegations. According to the complaint, "recordkeeping expenses can either be paid directly from plan assets, or indirectly by the plan's investments in a practice known as revenue sharing." They say that the revenue-sharing fee model selected by the investment committee allowed recordkeeping fees to balloon. The complaint also claims that "some authorities" recognize $35 per participant as the average amount large plans should pay in recordkeeping fees. It faults the investment committee for failing to conduct regular requests for proposal to identify more economical recordkeepers and for failing to leverage the plan's significant assets to negotiate a better deal on recordkeeping costs. Further supporting count 1, Riley and Reliford allege that many of the plan's funds charge excessive investment-management fees as, based on "the ICI median and ICI averages," "many of the plan's investments were significantly more expensive than comparable funds found in similarly sized plans." The complaint also alleges that "the Defendants could not have engaged in a prudent process" because the plan maintained several T. Rowe Price mutual funds despite the availability of cheaper, collective trust versions of the funds (which the plan eventually switched to). Riley and Reliford also claim that from 2014 to 2020 the investment committee imprudently retained at least one underperforming fund in the plan, the Eaton Vance Small/Mid Cap fund. In support of count 2, the complaint points both to the investment committee's alleged failures, as well as to Olin and its board's obligation to monitor the investment committee. Collectively, Riley and Reliford estimate that the Defendants' alleged, unlawful conduct has cost the plan millions of dollars. The Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Riley and Reliford do not allege "meaningful benchmarks" against which to evaluate the Defendant's fiduciary process and do not allege facts supporting an inference that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties. III. Discussion The Defendants move to dismiss the entirety of Riley and Reliford's complaint for failure to state a claim. Against Riley and Reliford's count 1, the Defendants argue that none of Riley and Reliford's three proffered theories -- that the investment committee imprudently allowed excessive recordkeeping fees, allowed excessive investment-management fees, and maintained an underperforming fund -- can support a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. Following this, the Defendants then argue that count 2 fails by implication. A. Breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim 1. Recordkeeping fees As previously described, the complaint alleges that the revenue-sharing fee model selected by the investment committee allowed recordkeeping fees to balloon. The complaint compares the plan's "astronomical" recordkeeping fees to a survey conducted by NEPC, an investment consulting firm, of 121 defined contribution plans. That survey found that in 2018 "no plans with between 5,000 and 10,000 participants paid more than $100 in per participant recordkeeping, trust and custody fees." The complaint also claims that "some authorities" recognize $35 per participant as the average amount large plans should pay in recordkeeping fees. It also faults the investment committee for failing to conduct regular requests for proposal to identify more economical recordkeepers and for failing to leverage the plan's significant assets to negotiate a better deal on recordkeeping costs. The investment committee argues that these allegations fail to state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. First, the committee argues that revenue sharing does not imply imprudence, and second, that the NEPC survey data is not a meaningful benchmark. Third, the committee argues that the authorities on which Riley and Reliford rely to establish a $35 recordkeeping-fee average likewise fail as an apt comparison. And finally, the committee urges the Court to reject as the basis for a claim Riley and Reliford's "speculation" that the committee fails to conduct periodic requests for proposal. Ultimately, the investment committee says that Riley and Reliford fail to identify any flaw in Olin's decision-making process that would allow the Court to infer misconduct. Judge Clark agrees with the investment committee. First, Riley and Reliford acknowledge that "a revenue sharing approach is not imprudent per se. Second, courts throughout the country routinely reject the 2019 NEPC survey -- among others -- as a sound basis for comparison because it lacks in detail. Third, Riley and Reliford fail to explain how their footnoted argument -- that the plan's recordkeeping costs are "clearly unreasonable" based on "some authorities" opining that large plans typically charge $35 per participant in recordkeeping fees -- provides a meaningful comparison. Finally, Riley and Reliford's assertions that the investment committee failed to conduct periodic requests for proposal and to renegotiate also do not cause the Court to draw an inference that the investment committee acted imprudently. As Judge Clark explained, the allegations in the complaint do not establish that the investment committee allowed Riley, Reliford, and the other plan participants to pay excessive fees. Thus, having considered the complaint in its totality, he concludes that Riley and Reliford do not state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under an excessive-recordkeeping-fees theory. 2. Investment-management fees As mentioned, Riley and Reliford allege that many of the plan's funds charge excessive investment-management fees and that "many of the plan's investments were significantly more expensive than comparable funds found in similarly sized plans." In support of these allegations, the complaint notes that many of the funds in the plan had expense ratios "significantly greater than the ICI median and ICI averages." The complaint also alleges that "the Defendants could not have engaged in a prudent process" because the plan maintained several T. Rowe Price mutual funds despite the availability of cheaper, collective trust versions of the funds (which the plan eventually switched to). Plaintiffs Riley and Reliford respond that determining whether the ICI data suffices as a benchmark impermissibly drags the Court "into the factual weeds." Once more, Judge Clark rejects this argument. Just like the Court's consideration of the NEPC survey, at this stage the Court accepts as true the ICI's findings as alleged, yet need not accept as true Riley and Reliford's legal conclusion that the survey serves as a meaningful benchmark against which to weigh the investment committee's actions. Riley and Reliford come closer, but ultimately fail to successfully allege that "the Defendants could not have engaged in a prudent process" with their bare allegation that the plan maintained several T. Rowe Price mutual funds despite the availability of cheaper, collective trust versions of the funds (which the plan eventually switched to). Without more, courts "routinely" find that collective trusts are not meaningful comparators to mutual funds because "collective trusts are subject to unique regulatory and transparency features that make a meaningful comparison impossible. Plaintiffs Riley and Reliford's complaint lacks any comparative allegations regarding plan investments, asset allocations, and the like -- merely contending that the T. Rowe Price target-date collective investment trust had a lower expense ratio than the T. Rowe Price target-date mutual funds. Without more, these allegations do not state a claim. Thus, having considered the complaint in its totality, Judge Clark concludes that Riley and Reliford do not state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under an excessive-investment-fees theory. 3. The one, underperforming fund Finally, according to the complaint, the investment committee should have replaced one of the funds in the plan, the Eaton Vance Small/Mid Cap fund, because it underperformed. As mentioned, in "an investment-by-investment challenge like this one, a complaint cannot simply make a bare allegation that costs are too high, or returns are too low. Rather, it 'must provide a sound basis for comparison -- a meaningful benchmark.'" Judge Clark holds that Riley and Reliford fail to explain how their comparator, the Nicholas II I fund, provides a sound basis for comparison to the Eaton Vance Small/Mid Cap fund. In fact, Riley and Reliford provide none of the information courts regularly consider when determining whether a plaintiff states an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, like fund prospectuses; instead, Riley and Reliford allege only that the two funds are "in the same category." Riley and Reliford's sparse allegations do not provide a meaningful benchmark against which the Court can evaluate their claim. Thus, having considered the complaint in its totality, Judge Clark concludes that Riley and Reliford do not state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the theory that Olin retained an underperforming fund. B. Failure-to-monitor claim Lastly, Olin and its board move to dismiss Riley and Reliford's derivative failure-to-monitor claim. Riley and Reliford's only argument against dismissal presumes that they state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against the investment committee. Because they fail to state such a claim, Judge Clark grants Olin and its board's motion to dismiss Riley and Reliford's failure-to-monitor claim. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Clark concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim. Thus, he grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismisses the complaint without prejudice, and denies Riley and Reliford's informal request for leave to amend their complaint. A separate order of dismissal accompanies the Memorandum and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzf6x343 from Leagle.com. OMNI HOTELS: Aquino Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARMEN AQUINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV14835, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 17, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04200 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. Omni Hotels Management Corporation is an international luxury hotel company based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joel P. Kelly, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Joel.Kelly@jacksonlewis.com - and – Melissa D. Owens, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 E-mail: Melissa.Owens@jacksonlewis.com ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: Reaches $2.3M Settlement in Cannabis Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Organigram Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: OGI) (TSX: OGI), along with its its subsidiary Organigram Inc., a leading licensed producer of cannabis in Canada, has reached a proposed settlement in a previously disclosed class action related to medical cannabis that was voluntarily recalled in December 2016 and January 2017. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia approved notice of Settlement will be sent to class members beginning on June 24, 2022. As part the Settlement, the Company has agreed to pay an aggregate of $2,310,000 (the "Settlement Amount"), which amount has been previously accrued in the Company's financial statements for the prior fiscal year. For the proposed Settlement to become effective, it must be approved by the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the Class. On August 31, 2022, the Court will hold a hearing to consider whether to approve the Settlement. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the Settlement Amount will be used to provide Class Members a refund of the amounts paid to purchase the voluntarily recalled product, less any refunds they have already received, as well as the payment of legal fees. In addition, the Company has agreed to pay the third-party claims administration costs. About Organigram Holdings Inc. Organigram Holdings Inc. is a NASDAQ Global Select Market and TSX listed company whose wholly-owned subsidiaries include: Organigram Inc. and Laurentian Organic Inc., licensed producers of cannabis and cannabis-derived products in Canada, and The Edibles and Infusions Corporation, a licensed manufacturer of cannabis-infused soft chews in Canada. Organigram is focused on producing high-quality, cannabis for patients and adult recreational consumers, as well as developing international business partnerships to extend the Company's global footprint. Organigram has also developed and acquired a portfolio of legal adult-use recreational cannabis brands, including Edison, Big Bag O' Buds, SHRED, SHRED'ems, Monjour, Laurentian, Tremblant Cannabis and Trailblazer. Organigram operates facilities in Moncton, New Brunswick and Lac-Superieur, Quebec, with a dedicated edibles manufacturing facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Company is regulated by the Cannabis Act and the Cannabis Regulations (Canada). [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Must Face Class Action Over Handling Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Chad Umble, writing for LancasterOnline, reports that individuals, bars and restaurants statewide are a step closer to receiving refunds potentially worth tens of millions of dollars on orders of alcohol not carried at Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores, but which were required to be picked up there. The Commonwealth Court recently overruled the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's objections to a class action suit that seeks the return of an estimated $25 million to $45 million the PLCB collected since 2017 through its $1.75-per-bottle handling fee on such "special orders." The Log Cabin restaurant in Warwick Township is the lead plaintiff in the suit, which also asks for the PLCB to pay back "pick up expenses" incurred by restaurants, specialty stores and individual customers that were forced to drive to a store because the PLCB didn't allow direct shipments to a home or business. "We just want to have the ability to get stuff delivered so we don't have to drive somewhere to pick everything up," said Kirk Liddell, owner of The Log Cabin. A state law had directed PLCB to end its handling fees for special orders and allow direct shipping by June 2017. But the agency didn't make any change until earlier in June when it notified wine and liquor producers that "new in 2022, suppliers wishing to deliver (special orders) directly to licensees may do so." Those simple words from the PLCB were the culmination of a 2-year-old legal dispute that has earned the agency stern rebukes from a variety of judges and left it in the crosshairs of the class-action suit that could force it to pay back the tens of millions of dollars in fees it collected as an unwanted middleman. "When a state or state agency takes something that doesn't belong to it, it can't keep it," said John G. Papianou, a partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP in Philadelphia, and the lead attorney in the case. 'Dilatory and obdurate' The PLCB has suffered a series of defeats in the matter, with the latest being a May 27 Commonwealth Court ruling in a separate case that found the agency liable for more than $100,000 in damages and more than $300,000 in legal fees. That ruling, which was issued on the same day as the recent Log Cabin order, was made in a case initially filed by two wine merchants in April 2020 after Gov. Tom Wolf's closure of state stores and licensee service centers made it impossible for them to sell products in the state. The PLCB had claimed it was not liable for damages because it enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning it can't be sued without its consent. But the Commonwealth Court's 3-2 ruling firmly rejected that argument. "This Court, having determined that the PLCB had a clear and unambiguous statutory duty to implement a procedure to process direct shipment (special orders) by June 1, 2017, … concludes that the PLCB's initial inaction was, at the very least, arbitrary, and its ongoing refusal to implement a procedure to process direct shipment (special orders) and continuing to assess handling fees is dilatory and obdurate," the May 27 ruling said. Merriam-Webster defines dilatory as "tending or intended to cause delay" and obdurate as "stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing." On June 3, the agency published its eight-page "Special Order Program Guide for Suppliers," which included the new section on "Direct Delivery of (special orders) to Licensees." A spokesman for the PLCB said the agency is "considering its next steps." Counting the costs Barring an appeal to the state Supreme Court, the Log Cabin-led class-action lawsuit will proceed with a discovery phase Papianou expects will reveal exactly how much the PLCB has collected in handling fees between June 2017 and now. Based on the agency's published reports of sales of special orders, Papianou estimates an amount between $25 million and $45 million. An award in a class-action lawsuit could increase by "millions" if there is allowance made for travel and employee costs related to making pickups, he said. Determining exactly how much PLCB's policy cost The Log Cabin would be difficult since it would be hard to put an exact dollar figure on the expense of sending an employee on the 40-minute round trip to the PLCB's licensee service center near Lancaster. "Our suit is to say, 'Hey, can we recover some of these fees we had to incur during this whole long wait to get the system up and running?'" Liddell said. While the PLCB has now given the go-ahead for direct shipments, Liddell says he is still waiting to hear from suppliers about how those will work, and if the suppliers will charge their own fees. He suspects they will have fees but doubts they will be as hefty as PLCB's $1.75-per-bottle levy. Although the case bears his restaurant's name, Liddell says he doesn't actually have much to do with how the class-action suit proceeds. The lawyers have asked him for insight into how the PLCB's system works, but he isn't incurring legal fees, and would realize the same payment as any other restaurant if the suit succeeds. In the unlikely event that the case goes to trial, he would have to testify. "As the lead plaintiff, you're really not in control of the lawsuit, per se, because it is a representative class and the lawyers represent the class," said Liddell, who earned a law degree at the University of Chicago. "If the Cabin decided it didn't want to be part of the lawsuit, there would be someone else. There's no great advantage to be the lead. I just agreed to it." [GN] PPG INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rodriquez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00838-MPK (W.D. Pa., June 8, 2022) challenges the policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the wage-and-hour statutes of the State of Nevada and similar laws and implementing regulations in other States. The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and State Law Class seeks to exercise their rights to unlawfully unpaid overtime wages and additional statutory liquidated damages in this matter, in addition to punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, the employer's share of relevant taxes, and such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. Mr. Rodriguez was employed by Defendant from approximately March 2019 to May 2022 as an hourly production supervisor employee in Sparks, Nevada. PPG Industries Inc. is a supplier of paints, coatings, optical products, and specialty materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com PROTECTIVE LIFE: Allen's Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY ALLEN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Tennessee Corporation; EMPIRE GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Alabama Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-BAK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. The Court finds that the insurance reserve information sought by Plaintiff at the pre-certification is not proportional to the needs of the case. California law provides that "in life insurance, the only measure of liability and damage is the sum or sums payable in the manner and at the times as provided in the policy to the person entitled thereto." As in Siino, the Plaintiff fails to explain how using reserve values to measure damages aligns with California law. The Court does not find persuasive the case primarily relied upon by the Plaintiff that case dealt with damages following an insurance provider's insolvency. Here, valuing damages is not dependent upon the reserves as Defendant is not in insolvency. Protective Life is a financial service holding company in Birmingham, Alabama. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nooRhX at no extra charge.[CC] RECON OILFIELD: Klees Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KALEN KLEES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01895-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying this case as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under Section 216(b) against the Defendants Recon Oilfield Services, Inc. and Triple J Oilfield Services LLC on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated; 2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims is sent by U.S. mail, email, and text to: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt Ohio field workers of the Defendants who had a wage deduction applied to their pay in any workweek that they were paid for more than 40 hours during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case;" 3. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent forms; 4. Directing Defendants to provide, within 14 days of an order granting conditional certification, a roster of all persons who fit the definition of the "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" that includes their full names, their dates of employment, their locations worked, job titles, their last known home addresses, their personal email addresses, and their mobile phone numbers; and 5. Directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to Join forms be sent to such present and former employees within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses as well as mobile phone numbers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNLmGx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com ROBERT HAMMER: Consent Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Zelaya --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL ZELAYA, et al., v. ROBERT HAMMER, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-62 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order granting the Defendants' consent motion for an extension of time. The Defendants' response is deemed timely filed. The Plaintiffs' reply is due by June 28, 2022, says Judge McDonough. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bpDm2k at no extra charge.[CC] SALVATION ARMY: Must Respond to Plaintiffs' FAC by July 27, 2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMON ALVEAR, JR., ROBERT MASSEY, DAVID STOUGH, and ANDREW KEIGANS, on behalf of themselves and all other similar situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00979-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order granting the parties' consent motion, in which the parties jointly move for an extension of the Defendant's deadline to respond to the pleadings and for the Court to hold in abeyance the deadline for any motion for class certification. -- The Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is extended through and including July 27, 2022. -- The 90-day deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification under LR 23.1(B), NDGa, is held in abeyance pending the outcome of a scheduling conference to be held after the filing of Defendant's answer or other response to the pleadings. The Salvation Army is a Protestant church and an international charitable organisation headquartered in London, England. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bcNpaX at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITAS SECURITY: Pierre Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Costs --------------------------------------------------------------- STEEVEN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 517560/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result of its alleged violations of the New York State Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant performing maintenance from approximately June 2021 to May 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Defendant required him and other similarly situated employees to wear their uniforms in a clean condition during each shift. However, the Defendant never paid them any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the cleanliness of their uniforms, says the Plaintiff. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Tel: (516) 742-4949 E-mail: mark@bglawny.com SHELTER MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Medical Treatment Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Sams, writing for the Claims Journal, reports that a divided Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may proceed with a class-action lawsuit that accuses Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. of illegally discounting payments for medical treatment provided to automobile insurance claimants. In a 4-3 decision, the high court found that Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Davis Fox did not err by certifying a class of plaintiffs whose medical payments were discounted by Shelter to account for payments the claimants had received from other insurance carriers. The lawsuit filed against Shelter by Samuel Baggett and Jana Lee says those discounts violate an Arkansas Insurance Department regulation that governs the coordination of benefits. "Shelter is the only insurer in Arkansas who reduces the benefits due to payments made by third parties," Little Rock attorney Kenneth "Rusty" Mitchell said in an email. He is one of three attorneys representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Mitchell disputed the insurer's argument that not discounting medical payments for monies received by other insurers would provide claimants with double recoveries. He said "it's the benefit of the bargain." "If a Shelter insured pays the coverage, and Arkansas law requires Shelter to pay medical . . . benefits despite the existence or applicability of any other coverage, the insured is just getting what he/she paid for." Both Baggett and Lee were injured in car wrecks and had policies that provided up to $5,000 in medical benefits. Shelter paid Baggett $2,000, but he contends he is owed the full $5,000. Lee said she incurred $4,000 in medical expenses, but Shelter did not pay the full amount. "Like Baggett, Lee claimed this deficiency resulted from Shelter's policy and practice of illegally deducting other plan payments from its reimbursements," the Supreme Court opinion says. Judge Fox certified a class consisting of all Shelter insureds whose medical payments were adjusted because of payments by other insurers or collateral sources since March 13, 2013, with no end date. Shelter Mutual appealed to the Supreme Court, making several arguments to assert that the class-action should not be allowed to proceed. Shelter argued that the class certified by the trial court is invalid because there was no end date. The Supreme Court majority said, in an opinion written by Justice Rhonda K. Wood, that the lack of a closing date is not uncommon initially. As the case proceeds the court will "close the loop." Shelter argued that the determining class members from the group of insureds who have had their claims reduced because of payments from other sources is an overly complicated inquiry because it could include payments reduced because of pre-existing conditions, unnecessary treatment or unreasonable expenses. The Supreme Court majority said class action complaints are always complicated, but it has allowed similar actions to proceed in the past. The opinion says discerning class members in this case would not be unduly burdensome. "Instead, here a class member can be determined by reviewing whether the requested payment and the received payment were different," the majority said. Shelter also argued that Baggett isn't a credible class representative because he was convicted of three felonies. Lee demonstrated during a questioning that she doesn't understand the concept of "unjust enrichment," so is not a suitable representative for the class, the insurer said. The majority said the trial court had already decided that Baggett and Lee are credible and found no reason to second-guess. The bar is low, the majority said. The court even once allowed a mentally ill person to serve as a class representative because there was no evidence that her illness made her unable to act in the class' best interest, according to the opinion. Associate Justices Barbara Webb, Courtney Hudson and Robin F. Wynne joined Wood in the majority decision. Chief Justice John Dan Kemp and Justices Karen R. Barker and Shawn A. Womack dissented. In an opinion written by Barker, the minority said as the class is now defined Shelter Mutual would have to open each claim file to determine why a full payment was not made. "Accordingly, contrary to the majority's position, the class members are not ascertainable by reference to objective criteria," the dissenting opinion says. [GN] SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 25 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPRO) between October 28, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important than July 25, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Spero Therapeutics 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 Spero Therapeutics class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6561 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 25, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the data submitted in support of the New Drug Application ("NDA") of Tebipenem HBr, an oral carbapenem-class antibiotic to treat complicated urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis for adults, were insufficient to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval; (2) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the Tebipenem HBr NDA in its current form; (3) the foregoing would necessitate a significant workforce reduction and restructuring of Spero Therapeutics's operations; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Spero Therapeutics class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6561 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] SPRINGBOARD MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 22, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE FERNANDEZ PRIETO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INJECTION MOLDING, LLC., dba SPRINGBOARD MANUFACTURING, Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery in Phase I shall be February 21, 2023 limited to facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action and shall be completed by: -- All counsel are to designate in April 24, 2023 writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at class certification not later than: -- The Motion for Class Certification June 22, 2023 shall be filed by: Northern California Injection Molding builds machine tools and plastic-injection molds used for U.S. military equipment and for products for private clients. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tViTZW at no extra charge.[CC] ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cody Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- City of St. Louis files an appeal from a court ruling granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled JAMES CODY, et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The current named Plaintiffs, James Cody, Jasmine Borden, Michael Mosley, Diedre Wortham, Callion Barnes, and Eddie Williams, were detained in City of St. Louis's Medium Security Institution (MSI) at various points from January to October of 2017. They claim that they endured inhumane conditions, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, while detained either pretrial or post-conviction in MSI. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2022, Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, and motion proposing narrower class definitions. The Court previously denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on December 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs' brief in support of their original motion for class certification proposed to combine class members' complaints of poor facility conditions, including pest infestations, plumbing problems, and mold, with their complaints of excessive force. The Court rejected this proposal in light of the differing legal standards between conditions-of-confinement and excessive force claims, and the fact that none of the named Plaintiffs was actually subjected to any use of force. The Defendant now seeks a review of Judge Fleissig's order granting class certification. The appellate case is captioned as James Cody, et al. v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 22-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 8, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner City of St. Louis, for and on behalf of Medium Security Institution, is represented by: Andrew D. Wheaton, Esq. CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 1200 Market Street, 314 City Hall Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000 Telephone: (314) 622-3361 Plaintiffs-Respondents James Cody, et al., are represented by: Robert J. Alessi, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 677 Broadway, Suite 1205 Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 788-9710 - and - Aaron Patrick Bowling, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 - and - Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq. Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Brandon Lamar Jackson, Esq. Jacki Janelle Langum, Esq. Blake A. Strode, Esq. John McCann Waldron, Esq. ARCH CITY DEFENDERS 440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 361-8834 - and - Samuel Henderson, Esq. HENDERSON LAW FIRM 1027 S. Vandeventer Avenue, Sixth Floor Saint Louis, MO 63110 Telephone: (314) 775-9798 - and - Dennis R. Kiker, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP Esplanade II, Suite 1000 2525 E. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-4232 Telephone: (408) 606-5529 - and - Jeffrey Douglas Kuhn, Esq. HARRIS & BEACH 677 Broadway, Suite 1101 Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 701-2746 - and - Ryan Lantry, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-4629 Telephone: (214) 743-4565 - and - Michael George Lewis, Esq. Gail Rodgers, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 - and - Tia Nguyen, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 839-4846 - and - Matthew Riley, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2724 - and - Saher Valiani, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110-1447 Telephone: (617) 406-6000 SUMTER ORIGINAL: Faces Stokes Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Chasidy N. Stokes, Kellian N. Wineski, Pamela Kelley, Lexus Harris, Malcolm Perry, and Michael Sheehan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sumter Original Brewery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01801-MGL (D.S.C., June 8, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and as a collective action, to recover wages and other damages arising from Defendant's failure to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Stokes and Kelley are former employees of Defendant while Plaintiffs Wineski, Harris, Perry and Sheehan are current employees of Defendant. They all worked for the Defendant as tipped employees, serving food and beverages to customers. Sumter Original Brewery, LLC is a brewery in downtown Sumter, South Carolina that serves food and beverages to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Dunlaevy, Esq. 37 Villa Road, Suite 440 Greenville, SC 29615 Telephone: (864) 208-9305 Facsimile: (864) 208-9313 E-mail: jeff@dunlaevylaw.com SURESCRIPTS LLC: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE SURESCRIPTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All Class Actions, Case No. 19-cv-06627 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the motions to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Surescripts, LLC, and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. I. Introduction The Plaintiffs, nine community pharmacies seeking to represent a putative class, assert that the Defendants have conspired to monopolize and restrain trade in the market for e-prescribing services. The Defendants are two health information technology companies. Both have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Defendants first argue the Plaintiffs' claims under the Sherman Act are barred by the direct purchaser rule set forth in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). In the present posture of the case, however, that argument is premature. Even if Illinois Brick does bar the Plaintiffs' claims under federal law, the Plaintiffs also assert various state law theories to which Illinois Brick is not an impediment. Because relief may be granted as to the claims alleged in the SAC regardless of Illinois Brick, there is no basis to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of claims, not legal theories. As for the merit of the Plaintiffs' claims, which center on the Defendants' use of loyalty pricing agreements, the Defendants argue such agreements are legal in accordance with the price-cost test. That test is inapposite. The apt test is the rule of reason, and under it, the complaint plausibly paints the agreements as illegal, de facto exclusive deals. The complaint also plausibly suggests the defendants entered into conspiracies to monopolize and restrain trade based on the alleged contracts between them. II. Background The antitrust action concerns the market for e-prescribing services. E-prescribing refers to the computer-based electronic transmission of prescription information from a doctor to a pharmacy. It became legal nationwide in 2007 and has since expanded dramatically. Between 2008 and 2017, the per annum e-prescribing transaction rate increased from 70 million to over 1.7 billion. By 2017, 77% of all prescriptions were being delivered electronically. Defendant Surescripts is the nation's largest provider of e-prescribing services. The Plaintiffs pay fees to receive prescriptions via Surescripts' e-prescribing network. They allege Surescripts has maintained a "95% share, by transaction volume," of the e-prescribing industry, leaving them "no commercially reasonable e prescribing alternative." "As as a result, Surescripts has been able to charge pharmacies supracompetitive prices for almost 10 years." The Pharmacies contend that Surescripts has been able to exclude e-prescribing competitors and sustain supracompetitive prices through illegal monopolization. They primarily point to three features of Surescripts' business to explain how Surescripts has illegally obtained and maintained a monopoly. The first is the two-sided nature of the e-prescribing market itself. An e-prescribing firm cannot attract doctors to its network unless it first attracts pharmacies, but it cannot attract pharmacies unless is first attracts doctors. This creates a natural barrier to entry for nascent competitors because the value of a network to each side of the market is dependent on the number of connections the network can facilitate. For the same reason, this market dynamic also naturally advantages any established firm. Second, the Pharmacies allege that Surescripts was able to partially solve this "chicken and egg" problem using illegal non-compete and exclusive dealing agreements. In the early years of the e-prescribing boom, they allege Surescripts formed contractual relationships with two fellow health information technology companies: RelayHealth and Defendant Allscripts. These companies were operating in adjacent markets involving the electronic transmission of patient health insurance information and thus had already established multi-party connections among a significant volume of doctors and pharmacies. In sum, the agreements with RelayHealth and Allscripts helped Surescripts mollify potential competitors and secure a dominant number of multi-party connections within the e-prescribing market; connections Surescripts then made exclusive through its loyalty pricing scheme. The alleged loyalty pricing scheme is the third central feature on which the Pharmacies' anticompetitive allegations are based. As pled, that scheme (discussed further in part II) uses long-term exclusivity commitments to bifurcate both sides of the e-prescribing market into loyal and non-loyal Surescripts customers. The Pharmacies claim it is simply impossible for a would-be Surescripts competitor to offer low enough prices to offset both penalties -- i.e., the retroactive clawback and the prospective rate differential -- even though Surescripts' loyalty rate (inclusive of the bonuses and discounts) is worse than what a competitor may offer. The ultimate result, the Pharmacies say, is that alternative e-prescribing networks are not viable because no competitor can convince enough customers on both sides of the market to break from Surescripts. This, they assert, leaves Surescripts free to charge supracompetitive prices. Following a similar complaint filed in 2019 by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. District for the District of Columbia, the Pharmacies brought suit here seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15(a), 26. They assert claims of monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize under section 2 of the Sherman Act, and two claims under section 1, for conspiracies in restraint of trade. They also reassert these claims under thirty different state antitrust statutes. Both Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They argue the Pharmacies' complaint is barred by the direct purchaser rule set forth in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and also attack the sufficiency of the complaint on its merits. III. Discussion A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. To survive such a motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" A claim "has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must construe all factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, but the court need not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations. A. Illinois Brick The Defendants lead with the argument that the federal claims should be dismissed because the SAC fails to allege that the Pharmacies are direct purchasers and therefore lack antitrust standing under the Illinois Brick doctrine. Judge Tharp opines that the Plaintiffs' claims do not turn on whether Illinois Brick applies, and Rule 12(b)(6) does not authorize the Court to dismiss the Pharmacies' federal law theories of relief in piecemeal fashion. Given the viability of other theories that apply regardless of whether the Pharmacies qualify as direct purchasers, the Pharmacies' claims survive. Judge Tharp turns, then, to the question of whether the allegations of the SAC plausibly state claims upon which relief can be granted. B. Monopolization (Surescripts) The parties differ as to the appropriate framework to evaluate the conduct at issue in the case. Surescripts urges the Court to apply the predatory pricing analysis (i.e., the "price-cost test"); the Pharmacies prefer the "rule of reason" analysis employed in the context of exclusive dealing agreements. Judge Tharp agrees with the Pharmacies that the alleged conduct at issue is better understood as a form of exclusive dealing. First, he finds that predatory pricing concerns below-market prices, not pricing disparities a monopolist creates among its own customers. Even with Surescripts' loyalty "discount," its price for e-prescribing is still allegedly well above market. Thus, Surescripts' characterization of this case as a species of predatory pricing is not persuasive. Second, Judge Tharp holds that the SAC plausibly alleges that, by means of those de facto exclusive deals, Surescripts has exploited its monopoly position to foreclose competition in the e-prescription market. Accordingly, Surescripts' motion to dismiss the Pharmacies' monopolization claim (Counts I and V) is denied. C. Conspiracy to Monopolize (Surescripts and RelayHealth) Alongside unlawful monopolization, it is an offense under section 2 of the Sherman Act to "combine or conspire with any other person or persons" to monopolize. The Pharmacies claim Surescripts conspired with RelayHealth, a health information technology company. The Pharmacies' allegations center on a non-compete agreement Surescripts signed with RelayHealth in 2003 and renewed in 2010 and 2015. On the face of the complaint, Judge Tharp holds that it is plausible to infer that RelayHealth intended for Surescripts to monopolize: It was being paid by Surescripts with a cut of Surescripts' monopoly profits to sit on the sideline rather than compete and drive down prices. In that light, the deals between Surescripts and RelayHealth are premised on the same logic that animates price fixing or market allocation schemes -- that is, it is better to divide a bigger pie of monopoly profits by agreement than to compete to win a larger share of a smaller pie of competitive profits. Other legitimate business justifications for RelayHealth's actions may come to light, but the Pharmacies have currently met their burden to plausibly allege a conspiracy to monopolize between Surescripts and RelayHealth. Surescripts' motion to dismiss the Pharmacies' conspiracy to monopolize claim (Counts II and VI) is denied. D. Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade (Surescripts and RelayHealth) Based on the foregoing conduct, the Pharmacies also assert a claim against Surescripts and RelayHealth for conspiring in restraint of trade. Section 1 of the Sherman Act declares "every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade" illegal. Although a section 1 conspiracy in restraint of trade and a section 2 conspiracy to monopolize may be "reciprocally distinguishable from and independent of each other" whenever their objectives differ, the alleged conspiracies, like in the present case, are entirely coterminous. Given this condition, courts routinely apply the same analysis to both claims. Although Surescripts contests only the specific intent element of the section 2 conspiracy claim, in the context of the section 1 conspiracy claim, Surescripts argues that the alleged non-compete agreement with RelayHealth is not plausibly unlawful under the rule of reason. Having already determined that the Pharmacies' section 2 claim survives, the logical consequence is that their section 1 claim does as well. Judge Tharp holds that it is plausible the non-compete agreement was entered into with the intent to further or maintain Surescripts' monopoly. The Pharmacies have also adequately claimed the agreement had this intended effect, and therefore, it is, as alleged, an unreasonable restraint of trade. The potential procompetitive aspects of the non-compete agreement that Surescripts points to (i.e., the "co-development of an initial list of 27 different value-added services") do not alone demand a different conclusion. Surescripts' motion to dismiss the Pharmacies' conspiracy in restraint of trade claim (Counts III and VII) is therefore denied. E. Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade (Surescripts and Allscripts) Finally, the Pharmacies also claim that Surescripts conspired in restraint of trade with Defendant Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. This claim too survives, Judge Tharp opines. He finds that the rule of reason analysis for exclusive dealing applies with equal force on this claim. And in all, the allegations plausibly support an inference that Surescripts and Allscripts were conspiring to restrain trade for other than pro-competitive reasons. First, although the Pharmacies have not alleged Allscripts competed directly in the routing market, because that market requires a certain threshold number of customers before any e-prescribing firm can start competing, Allscripts' alleged representation of a significant volume of customers plausibly implies that it had market power. The Pharmacies allege that Allscripts' business was a make-or-break connection for any of Surescripts' competitors. This is sufficient to adequately plead market power. Second, per the complaint, Allscripts ostensibly represents only 20% of prescribers within the e-prescribing market. The conclusion from the Defendants is that 20% does not represent substantial foreclosure. The figures are not controlling. The only question at this stage is whether the "allegations raise a reasonable inference that the Defendants' exclusive-dealing provisions could foreclose a substantial portion of the market and reduce output." Recall that it is considered adequate for a plaintiff in a rule of reason case to allege "(1) evidence of market structure and (2) exclusionary effect (i.e., foreclosure of a competitor from a market)." Given the Pharmacies' extensive allegations regarding the foreclosure of Emdeon, their complaint is sufficient to state a plausible claim. The Defendants' motions to dismiss the Pharmacies' conspiracy in restraint of trade claim (Counts IV and VIII) is therefore denied. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3u58rnue from Leagle.com. T-MOBILE USA: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over 3G Networks' Shutdown ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that T-Mobile launched a 5G network without telling customers that it planned to shut down older networks, and didn't address network incompatibilities for certain phones, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Jose Luis Garcia Moreno filed the class action complaint against T-Mobile USA Inc. on June 15 in a Washington federal court, alleging breach of warranty and violations of consumer laws. He says T-Mobile developed the network's launch without disclosing to its customers -- including former Sprint customers following the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile -- that it intended to shut down older networks without adequately addressing network incompatibilities for numerous devices dependent upon them. Impacted devices included the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G, LG V50 ThinQ 5G, HTC 5G Hub, OnePlus 7 Pro 5G, and various tablets, security systems, and other devices. "Many of the Class Devices have or will become wholly unusable as the non-Network older Sprint and T-Mobile networks with which they are compatible, including Sprint's 3G, 5G, and LTE networks as well as T- Mobile's 3G UMTS network, get shutdown," the lawsuit states. "Defendant has been unwilling to acknowledge the Defect, much less remedy it, and Plaintiff hereby seeks to correct that injustice." Customers left with inoperable devices On July 2, 2020, T-Mobile shut down Sprint's 5G network. Tech websites noted the inoperability of Sprint's 5G-enabled devices, including the OnePlus 7 5G, on the network, the lawsuit states. The shutdown of Sprint's 5G network left approximately 75,000 sold 5G phones without the ability to receive a 5G signal. "Rather than offer owners of these phones free upgrades, customers would have to switch their phone and phone plan to a new offering from T-Mobile," the plaintiff alleges. Selling 5G data plans, in particular, with a limited shelf life and devices unable to connect to existing 5G and other networks is a fraud on consumers, he says. Moreno is looking to represent anyone in the United States who owned or leased an affected device. He's seeking certification of the class action, an injunction, fees, costs, monetary relief and a jury trial. Meanwhile, T-Mobile is being sued by a Florida man who says he received 50 unwanted calls from T-Mobile and its affiliates chasing down a stranger's unpaid debt. [GN] TENNESSEE: Class Action Mulled Over Foster Care System ------------------------------------------------------ Ben Hall, writing for WTVF, reports that ongoing problems at the Department of Children's Services could lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of all kids in Tennessee's foster care system according to a prominent Nashville attorney. David Raybin was one of the attorneys involved in a similar lawsuit against DCS in 2000. Raybin said "very active discussions" are underway and "unless the state steps up" another lawsuit could be coming. The lawsuit in 2000 led to a court takeover of the Department of Children's Services. Raybin said high turnover among case workers, high caseloads and not enough foster homes mirror the problems the department faced more than 20 years ago. In 2000, a children's advocacy group sued then-Governor Don Sundquist on behalf of all foster kids in Tennessee. Law enforcement continues the search for Hendersonville officer's accused shooter "Because the kids are so powerless, they have no constituency. They have no voice, and we were their voice. And we are going to speak up again unless the state steps up and does this," Raybin said. The lawsuit in 2000 came to be known as Brian A. Brian was a 9-year-old foster child from Memphis, who attorneys claimed went without schooling and mental health treatment because DCS had nowhere to place him. Court supervision of Tennessee's foster care system did not end until 2019, nearly twenty years after the lawsuit was filed. "They have just slipped right back into the old ways, and it is unnecessary, and it is wrong," Raybin said. When NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "is there talk about another lawsuit like Brian A.?" Raybin responded, "we have had very active discussions with Children's Rights in New York." Children's Rights led the Brian A lawsuit which cited "extraordinary turnover of DCS case managers" leading to "dangerously high caseloads" ensuring foster kids don't "receive necessary services." We talked to foster parents earlier this year who raised similar concerns. "This individual didn't have a case manager, so I didn't know who to go to. Who do I call if there is no case manager to call?" asked foster parent Kelli Stidham in March. She said she takes in foster kids but cannot get in touch with case managers to get important information and services. Other foster parents told us the same thing. "You asked questions and you get, 'well that's not the case worker anymore. OK, well who is the new case worker and when are they going to reach out to us?' And you reach out and you hear nothing," said foster mom Jennifer Snook. Snook said one of her foster kids had five different case workers in just 18 months. DCS said it has 2,765 budgeted caseworker positions. But in March -- 609 of those positions were unfilled. DCS pointed to the pandemic and acknowledged it "is experiencing unprecedented turnover in case managers like most other state child welfare agencies -- and all industries -- across the country." But the department has admitted some workers have 50 or more cases a month despite a law that limits the average caseload to 20. Davidson County Juvenile Court Judge Sheila Calloway voiced concern about the number of abused and neglected children taken into custody who sleep in state office buildings because there is no foster home. Our investigation found more than 40 kids who ran away from the DCS office building at 500 James Robertson Parkway in the last year. They were all eventually listed as a missing person in police reports. NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked the judge, "how surprised are you to see all these missing person reports?" Judge Calloway responded, "It's unfortunate, but I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised." Judge Calloway called the situation at DCS a "crisis." "We have to acknowledge we have a problem. We are in a crisis. We have to acknowledge that in order to solve the crisis." Judge Calloway said in April. In 2000, the Brian A. lawsuit cited "an atmosphere of intimidation exists within DCS" and claimed it "deters advocacy for children in custody by case managers." A leaked employee survey last year blasted the department's leadership and cited a toxic work environment. Last summer a caseworker released cell phone video showing kids sleeping in a DCS office building. The children had been removed from their unsafe home, but DCS had no foster home for them. "They're sleeping on the floor. They don't even have blankets. That's demeaning. We just told them they don't matter," said former DCS case worker Terri Nelson. Nelson told us she released the video because people needed to know what was happening, but she was later fired by the department. "I definitely thought it would, it could put a target on my back," Nelson said last year. Attorney David Raybin is urging DCS and Gov. Bill Lee to make changes. He said many in state government do not remember the Brian A. lawsuit. "They are so short-sighted and have no memory. There's no institutional memory. All of the people who were around when Brian A. was happening are gone," Raybin said. "The state has an absolute obligation to step forward and make it right for these kids, and they're not doing it." Raybin said a potential class-action lawsuit like Brian A. would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. He described that kind of litigation as "thermonuclear war," and said the money, time and effort would be better spent on the system before a lawsuit happens. [GN] TENNESSEE: Court Won't Amend Intervention Bid Denial in S.B. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, S.B., a minor student, by and through his parents, M.B. and L.H. et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR BILL LEE, in his official capacity as Governor of Tennessee, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00317-JRG-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge J. Ronnie Greer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, denies the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The Judge finds that Proposed Intervenors M.M., E.M., and D.M. fail to show that the Court committed clear error when it denied their motion to intervene as moot. I. Background On Aug. 16, 2021, the Governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, issued Executive Order No. 84, which states: "I, Bill Lee, Governor of the State of Tennessee, having declared a continuing state of emergency by Executive Order No. 83, dated Aug. 6, 2021, and by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Tennessee Constitution and other applicable law including Tennessee Code Annotated Section 58-2-107, do hereby order that a student's parent or guardian will have the right to opt out of any order or requirement for a student in kindergarten through twelfth-grade to wear a face covering at school, on a school bus, or at school functions, by affirmatively notifying in writing the local education agency or personnel at the student's school." Not long afterwards, the Knox County Board of Education, in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, met on Sept. 1, 2021, to discuss and vote on a district-wide mask mandate for its school system, which consists of 90 schools and 60,000 students. Approximately 8,000 of those students are disabled. By vote of the board, a mask mandate had been in effect during the entirety of the previous school year, from August 2020 to May 2021, for all ninety schools. But this year, during the board's meeting on Sept. 1, 2021, it decided not to renew the mask mandate by a vote of 5 to 4 -- acting at odds with the guidelines of the Knox County Health Department, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), all of which recommend masks for all students enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In response to the board's vote, the Plaintiffs, on the following day, brought a class-action lawsuit in the Court under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, claiming they are "unable to safely attend school without increased risks of serious injury or even death, unlike their non-disabled peers." The Plaintiffs allege that they suffer from underlying medical conditions that expose them to a likelihood of severe illness or death from COVID-19, a highly transmissible and sometimes deadly virus that invades the body through the mouth, nose, and eyes and spreads through respiratory droplets that persons produce by speaking, coughing, or sneezing. Children under the age of twelve are not yet eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines, and some children who are old enough to receive the vaccines may have medical conditions that do not allow their immune systems to sufficiently respond to them. All the Plaintiffs are zoned within the public school system of the Knox County Schools. The Plaintiffs claim that the Knox County Board of Education has violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by not providing them with a reasonable accommodation that would enable them -- against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic—to have safe and "fundamental access to the school building itself." Specifically, they cite an "urgent need" for a mask mandate inside Knox County Schools and allege the reasonable accommodation "being sought in this case is community masking: Protection of selves and others." According to the Plaintiffs, the Knox County Board of Education's rejection of a mask mandate is placing them at an "increased risk of serious injury or death by not allowing a simple reasonable modification under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act." In addition, the Plaintiffs claim that Governor Lee has violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act because, by promulgating Executive Order No. 84, he denied the Knox County Board of Education "the ability to provide the children with disabilities in the instant matter with the protections they need to attend school safely." The Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of all "current and future K-12 students" who are "eligible to attend public school in Knox County, Tennessee, during the coronavirus pandemic," who are unable to receive the vaccine or unable to mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine, and who suffer from one or more of the following medical conditions: (a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure and/or coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) hypertension; (f) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease); (g) blood disorders (including sickle cell disease); (h) inherited metabolic disorders; (i) history of stroke; (j) neurological or developmental disability (including epilepsy); (k) cancer or cancer treatments; and/or (l) muscular dystrophy or spinal cord injury. The Plaintiffs also moved the Court to issue a preliminary injunction that "requires Knox County Board of Education to enforce a mask mandate" and that "enjoins Governor Lee during the litigation from enforcing Executive Order No. 84." The Court ultimately granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the Knox County Board of Education to enforce -- with immediate effect -- the mask mandate that was in place in all Knox County Schools during the 2020-2021 school year, as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for the Plaintiffs and the Class Plaintiffs. The Court, however, granted the Knox County Board of Education leave to approve exemptions to the mask mandate under Policy C-240, which it created and put into effect during the 2020-2021 school year. A few weeks ago, the Plaintiffs and the Knox County Board of Education entered into a settlement agreement, and they jointly moved the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, for dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' claims against the Knox County Board Education. The Court granted their Rule 21 motion to dismiss, and in doing so, it denied as moot the recently filed motion to intervene, who are students in Knox County's schools. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46, they now object to the Court's denial of their motion to intervene as moot, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), they move the Court to alter or amend its judgment by restoring their motion to its active docket. II. Analysis In moving the Court to alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e), M.M., E.M., D.M., the Proposed Intervenors, do not cite any of the four bases for relief -- i.e., a clear error in law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, or a need to prevent manifest injustice -- as grounds for their motion. They leave to Court to presume that they believe it committed clear error when it denied their motion to intervene as moot because they maintain that their motion "is not moot" and that "sometimes intervention can occur even after a final judgment." In contending that a proposed intervenor can sometimes intervene in a case even after a court has entered a final judgment, they cite United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977) and Horn v. Eltra, Corp., 686 F.2d 439 (6th Cir. 1982). Judge Greer opines that neither of these cases even remotely establishes that the Court committed a clear error in law by denying M.M., E.M., D.M.'s motion to intervene as moot. In McDonald, the issue was not whether the motion to intervene was moot but whether it was timely after the would-be intervenor, who requested "post-judgment intervention for the purpose of appeal," filed it subsequent to the district court's order of dismissal. And in Horn, the "civil action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a settlement between" the parties, and the district court, following the dismissal, revoked a third party's status as an intervenor in the case. The issue was whether "the settlement of the plaintiff's basic claim now renders moot the present appeal which seeks the reinstatement of the third party as an intervenor in the lawsuit." The Sixth Circuit held that the appeal was moot. So, in short, neither McDonald nor Horn supports M.M., E.M., D.M.'s contention that the Court clearly erred when it denied their motion to intervene as moot, and their reliance on Horn actually harms their position. M.M., E.M., D.M. point out that the Court's order of dismissal did not affect the claims against Governor Lee and these claims still require the Court's adjudication. In their view, the outstanding claims against Governor Lee raise "an extant issue" that entitles them to pursue intervention. They contend that "if Governor Lee definitively states he will not reissue Executive Order 84, then they have a right to take up the mantle in his stead to argue why there should be no permanent injunction against a Tennessee Governor seeking to protect the civil liberties afforded to the citizens of his state." But this contention is disingenuous, according to Judge Greer, because nowhere in their motion to intervene or accompanying memorandum do they even mention Executive Order 84, let alone communicate an interest in intervening in the Plaintiffs' claim relating to Executive Order 84. Instead, they express an interest in intervening only so they can challenge the Court's mask mandate, by arguing that it is illegal under the ADA, that it violates various statutes and constitutional amendments, and that masks are ineffective in slowing and preventing the spread of COVID-19. The Court's mask mandate, however, is defunct, with the Court having dissolved its preliminary injunction when it unconditionally dismissed with prejudice the claims against the Knox County Board of Education. The Court therefore is without jurisdiction over these claims, and by extension, it is without jurisdiction over M.M., E.M., and D.M.'s motion to intervene in relation to them. In this litigation, the remaining dispositive issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs' claims against Governor Lee are moot in light of the fact that, last year, he opted not to renew Executive Order 84, which is now no longer in force or existence. But again, M.M., E.M., and D.M., in their motion to intervene and in their accompanying memorandum, express no appreciable interest in intervening in the Plaintiffs' claim relating to Executive Order 84, and to the extent they now argue, for the first time in their Rule 59(e) motion, that they do have such an interest, the Court lacks license to consider their belated argument. In sum, M.M., E.M., and D.M. fail to show that the Court committed clear error when it denied their motion to intervene as moot. IV. Conclusion M.M., E.M., and D.M. fail to meet their heavy burden as movants under Rule 59(e), and their motion to alter or amend judgment is therefore denied. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wvcm22vd from Leagle.com. TERRAFORM LABS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on June 21 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants TerraForm Labs Pte. Ltd ("TFL"), Jump Crypto, Jump Trading LLC, Republic Capital, Republic Maximal LLC, Tribe Capital, DeFinance Capital, DeFinance Technologies, GSR/GSR Market Limited, Three Arrows Capital Pte. Ltd, TFL's co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Do Kwon, and its Head of Research, Nicholas Platias. The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and captioned Patterson v. TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd. Et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03600, asserts claims under §§5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), as well as under §§10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased so-called Terra Tokens from May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022 inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is August 19, 2022. If you purchased Terra Tokens, including UST, LUNA, KRT, ANC, WHALE, ASTRO, APOLLO, XDEFI, MINE, aUST, vUST, MIR, Mirrored Assets (e.g. mBTC, mETH, mVIXY, mTSLA, etc.), Liquidity Pool tokens (e.g. UST-mVIXY-LP, bLUNA-LUNA-LP, XDEFI-UST-LP, etc.) and/or Bonded Assets (e.g. bLUNA and bETH) between May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022, inclusive, and have suffered significant losses, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Sean Masson (212) 519-0522, or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com, for more information. TFL is a company that operates the Terra blockchain and its related protocol, which hosts, supports, and funds a community of decentralized financial applications and products known collectively as the Terra ecosystem. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct that TFL intended to and did deceive retail investors and thereby caused them to purchase Terra Tokens at artificially inflated prices; endorsed false statements they knew or recklessly should have known were materially misleading; and, made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The complaint alleges that TFL and the Individual Defendants also violated provisions of the Securities Act by selling non-exempt security without registering it. The complaint alleges that the TFL and Individual Defendants also violated provisions of the Securities Act by participating in TFL's failure to register the Terra Tokens. The complaint further alleges non-securities claims, such as California common law claims for aiding and abetting and for civil conspiracy. Finally, the complaint alleges that all Defendants violated provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The complaint further alleges that the Defendants violated provisions of California Common Law by possessing the monetary value of Terra Tokens at inflated value which rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the Class. On May 25, 2022, the price of the UST hit a low of $0.07 per token, down from $1, which it has not been able to recover. The price of UST and LUNA Tokens dropped by 91% and 99.7% between May 7, 2022, and May 12, 2022, and has not recovered. Lead Plaintiff Deadline The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is August 19, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 19, 2022. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Plaintiff's counsel, Sean Masson of Scott+Scott, at (212) 519-0522 or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide, with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia. Contacts Sean Masson Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169 (212) 519-0522 smasson@scott-scott.com [GN] TESLA INC: Class Settlement in Rasmussen Suit Has Court's Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issues Final Approval Order in the case, DAVID RASMUSSEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04596-BLF (N.D. Cal.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of a proposed class action settlement of the Action") between the Parties, pursuant to the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and entered the Preliminary Approval Order on Dec. 9, 2021, and notice was given to all members of the Settlement Class under the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order. Judge Freeman has read and considered the papers filed in support of the Motion, including the Settlement Agreement and the exhibits thereto, memoranda and arguments submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff, Settlement Class Members, and Tesla, and supporting declarations. The Court held a hearing on June 16, 2022. Based on the papers filed with the Court and the presentations made to the Court at the hearing, Judge Freeman now gives final approval to the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. She has specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement approval. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(c), Judge Freeman certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following "Settlement Class": All U.S. residents who, anytime during the period from May 15, 2019 through Sept. 1, 2020, owned or leased a Tesla Model S vehicle that experienced a limitation of maximum battery voltage as the result of the software update issued by Tesla in May 2019. Excluded from the Settlement Class are any Judge presiding over this Action, the members of his or her immediate family, and Tesla and its officers and directors. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, David Rasmussen is appointed as the Class Representative and the following are appointed as Class the Counsel: Robert J. Nelson Nimish R. Desai LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Edward C. Chen LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD C. CHEN 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Judge Freeman finds that Tesla properly and timely notified the appropriate state and federal officials of the Settlement Agreement under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. She orders the Parties to the Settlement Agreement to perform their obligations thereunder. The Settlement Agreement, including the releases therein, will be deemed incorporated herein as if explicitly set forth and will have the full force of an order of the Court. Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiff, each and every Settlement Class Member, and the remainder of the Releasing Parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) fully and irrevocably release and forever discharge the Released Parties from the Released Claims. The Released Claims do not cover claims relating to a motor vehicle accident or involving personal injury or property damage. Judge Freeman dismisses the Action with prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided in the Final Approval Order and in the Settlement Agreement) as to the Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members. She adjudges that, upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties, and each of them, will be deemed to have fully and irrevocably released and forever discharged all Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members shall, as of the Effective Date, conclusively be deemed to have acknowledged that the Released Claims may include claims, rights, demands, causes of action, liabilities, or suits that are not known or suspected to exist as of the Effective Date. The Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members nonetheless release all such Released Claims against the Released Parties. Further, as of the Effective Date, the Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members will be deemed to have waived any and all protections, rights, and benefits of California Civil Code section 1542 and any comparable statutory or common law provision of any other jurisdiction. The benefits and payments described in the Settlement Agreement are the only consideration, fees, and costs Tesla will be obligated to give to the Class Representative, the Settlement Class Members, and the Class Counsel in connection with the Settlement Agreement, the Released Claims, and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and accompanying Judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over: (a) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement until the final judgment contemplated hereby has become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto pursuant to the Settlement Agreement has been performed; (b) any other action necessary to conclude the Settlement and to administer, effectuate, interpret, and monitor compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement; and (c) all parties to this Action and Settlement Class Members for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the Settlement Agreement, including the bar orders set forth. Judge Freeman approves payment of attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the amount of $373,377.79 plus their costs of $36,622.21. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. She also approves the service award payment of $1,000 to David Rasmussen and specifically finds such amount to be reasonable in light of the service performed by the Plaintiff for the class. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Freeman finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering this Final Approval Order and accompanying Judgment. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed forthwith to enter the Final Approval Order and accompanying Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2a8n65fs from Leagle.com. TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeals Court Ruling in Diesel Filters Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Royce Kurmelovs, writing for The Guardian, reports that Toyota has appealed against a class action ruling which could see more than 260,000 car owners receive damages of about $2bn, but concerns remain about the environmental impact of the faulty diesel particulate filters that caused the problems with some of Australia's most popular vehicles. The federal court handed down a decision in April that found Toyota had sold cars with defective diesel particulate filters over a five-year period. The action was brought by Ken Williams through lawyers Bannister Law Class Actions and Gilbert + Tobin. Williams was awarded $18,000 after he found his car emitting white smoke several months after buying it. Despite repeatedly trying to address the issue it could not be fixed. On June 21 Toyota filed an appeal against the decision alleging mistakes of fact and law. Toyota Australia was contacted for comment. The class action ruling applies to owners of defective HiLux, Prado and Fortuner diesel models who bought their new cars between 1 October 2015 and 23 April 2020, and still own them. More than 260,000 people may be affected, though it is not clear what the cumulative or individual environmental impact was. Assoc Prof Donna Green, from Digital Grid Futures Institute at the University of New South Wales, said she could not say what the environmental effect would be without knowing what was in the tailpipe emissions. But with the average vehicle staying on the road for 17 years, Green said it would have an impact on human health. "Initially I thought, 'God, diesel particulates in the car with the kids in the back, that's going to have a health impacts'," Green said. "There's a whole cocktail of air pollution that comes out of a tailpipe and none of it is good." "Anyone whose within nose distance, it will have an impact on their health. If they have kids in the back of the car, it will impact them because they have developing bodies, because that kind of air pollution is not good for them." Green said "additional, unnecessary" tailpipe emissions may have other effects beyond the immediate risk to human health, such as increased CO2 output which contributes to climate change. Toyota's appeal comes after the company faced shareholder protests at its AGM in Japan over its lobbying against the introduction of electric vehicles. Violette Snow, a Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner, said the federal court ruling "only serves to highlight Toyota's role in keeping Australian transport emissions sky-high". "Once a leader in the development of cleaner car technology Toyota has now fallen behind," Snow said. "Today Toyota is overinvested in outdated, polluting ICE [internal combustion engines] and hybrid technology while other manufacturers race ahead with electric vehicles. "Toyota is fast gaining a reputation -- both in Australia and globally -- as a blocker and a laggard in the adoption of clean cars." Influence Map, a UK-based thinktank that tracks the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel sector, ranked Toyota lowest of all companies over its climate change policy. Toyota, a manufacturer of hybrid vehicles, is considered late to electric vehicle manufacturing having only presented its first fully electric vehicle in November last year. As CO2 emissions from energy production have fallen, emissions associated with the road transport sector are now the fastest growing. Under the previous government a lack of clear policy raised concerns Australia would become a dumping ground for cars as fuel efficiency standards elsewhere made them difficult to sell in overseas markets. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Goussev Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Evgeniy Goussev, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled Evgeniy Goussev, Stacy Ritch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05708-DGE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma. The suit was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Sept. 24, 2021. The two plaintiffs who filed the class action lawsuit allege the infotainment systems in vehicles built at least from 2014 onward also download and store copies of all text messages from phones connected to the infotainment systems. The lawsuit alleges Toyota violates the Washington Privacy Act, "which forbids any entity in Washington from intercepting or recording any private communication without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication." On November 18, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted on May 5, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge David G. Estudillo. On May 20, 2022, Judge Estudillo dismissed the complaint and entered judgment in favor of Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's judgment and dismissal order. The appellate case is captioned as Evgeniy Goussev, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 22-35454, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 9, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Evgeniy Goussev and Stacy Ritch Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 16, 2022; -- Appellants Evgeniy Goussev and Stacy Ritch opening brief is due on August 8, 2022; -- Appellee Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. answering brief is due on September 7, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EVGENIY GOUSSEV and STACY RITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joel Ard, Esq. ARD LAW GROUP PLLC P.O. Box 11633 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 701-9243 Defendant-Appellee TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation, is represented by: Nicola Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3787 - and - James G. Snell, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 838-4367 TWC PRODUCT: Hart, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON HART, ALEX DANIELS, and JOSHUA DUNLAP, v. TWC PRODUCT AND TECHNOLOGY LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03842-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). Alternatively, the Plaintiffs will move the court to certify the issues of liability for class adjudication Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). According to the complaint, for years, TWC collected precise location data from users of its mobile Weather Channel App ("TWC App") upon the representation that this data would be used to provide users with local weather and alerts. In response, users overwhelmingly allowed TWC to gain access to their location data. Once it had lured users in, TWC collected, on average, more than one location "ping" per hour per user, with latitude and longitude accurate to the fifth decimal place. Then, without disclosing as much, it put this massive amount of data to work, pitching the ability to target advertisements based on where users lived, worked, and travelled and passing on location data to bidders in open marketplaces seeking to advertisements. TWC is responsible for the publishing and operation of the TWC App that has been available for download for more than ten years on Apple and Android Devices. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nhLQLL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq. Garrett Owens, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 706-7517 Facsimile: (205) 209-9588 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com UKG INC: Fraga Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ABIEZER FRAGA, CHARLES WILLIAMS, and CHRISTIAN CAVAZOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UKG INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008353 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence, and third-party beneficiary of contracts by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal identifiable information. UKG Inc. provides software and services to help employers manage employee schedules, track employee time and attendance, administer employee absence and leave, and measure employee productivity. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information that it acquired from thousands of its customers about their employees, and failed to implement adequate safeguards to ensure its ability to timely process payroll for Defendant's customers, which resulted in employees of Defendant's customers not being paid on time, following an unauthorized access to the Kronos Private Cloud, the Defendant's workforce data storage, as part of a ransomware attack. As the result, the personal information of Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Suit Over Student Loan Debts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Roberts of Higher Ed Dive reports that The U.S. Department of Education agreed Wednesday to automatically forgive the federal student loans of roughly 200,000 borrowers to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that the agency delayed granting relief to students who were defrauded by their colleges. Under the terms of the Sweet v. Cardona settlement, the Ed Department will automatically forgive about $6 billion in student loans under the borrower defense to repayment regulation, which allows students to have their loans forgiven if their colleges misled them. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will review the proposed settlement in July, according to the Project on Predatory Student Lending, one of the organizations providing legal representation for the students. Students will be eligible to receive debt relief if they filed a borrower defense claim against one of the 150-plus colleges listed in the settlement agreement -- including large for-profit universities such as Capella and Walden. The settlement agreement could bring to a close a years-long legal dispute over hundreds of thousands of borrower defense claims. The list of institutions whose borrower defense claimants will receive automatic relief is wide-ranging -- it includes currently operating colleges, such as Purdue University Global and Grand Canyon University, as well as shuttered for-profit chains like ITT Technical Institute and Vatterott Educational Centers. The deal has been praised by student advocacy groups. "The prospect of full student loan debt discharges in a final settlement to the Sweet case is welcome -- and overdue -- news for more than 200,000 borrowers who deserve relief under federal law," Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a statement Thursday. The Ed Department determined that "attendance at one of these schools justifies presumptive relief" because of strong signs of "substantial misconduct by listed schools, whether credibly alleged or in some instances proven," according to the settlement. The listed colleges also have high rates of borrower defense applications, it says. Along with loan forgiveness, students will be refunded loan payments they've made, and their debts will be removed from their credit reports. Roughly 68,000 students filed a borrower defense application but attended a college not listed in the settlement. The Ed Department will issue a decision on their claims within 30 months of the settlement agreement being finalized. If they don't receive a decision by then, their loans will automatically be discharged. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona heralded the settlement in a statement Wednesday. "Since day one, the Biden-Harris Administration has worked to address longstanding issues relating to the borrower defense process," he said. "We are pleased to have worked with plaintiffs to reach an agreement that will deliver billions of dollars of automatic relief to approximately 200,000 borrowers and that we believe will resolve plaintiffs' claims in a manner that is fair and equitable for all parties." The Ed Department did not admit to any wrongdoing under the agreement. Career Education Colleges and Universities, which lobbies on behalf of for-profit institutions, panned the settlement Tuesday. "We are deeply concerned that in its haste to respond to outside political pressure, the U.S. Department of Education is attempting to approve wide swaths of claims without regard to individual merit," CECU President and CEO Jason Altmire said in a statement. "The Department has an obligation to take a more measured approach to determine if each student has been financially harmed based on an unlawful act. The Court should look carefully at the settlement agreement to ensure it is fair for all parties involved." The lawsuit was brought in 2019 by a group of students seeking borrower defense to repayment. They alleged that the Trump administration was mishandling their applications by delaying their processing and issuing blanket denials. That year, then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tightened the rules around borrower defense. The new rule, which affects students applying for borrower defense from July 2020 onward, requires borrowers to prove that their college knowingly misled them and that those deceptions harmed them financially. During her tenure, the lawsuit's class members had a 94.4% denial rate for their borrower defense applications, according to court documents. DeVos' stricter borrower defense rule is still in effect today. The Biden administration plans to release its own version of the rule this month. The settlement comes about three weeks after the Biden administration announced it was automatically granting borrower defense applications to 560,000 former students of Corinthian Colleges, a defunct for-profit chain. The discharge totaled $5.8 billion, which the agency said was the largest in its history. Earlier this year, the department announced the cancellation of $415 million in debt for almost 16,000 students who attended several for-profit colleges including, notably, the still-operating DeVry University. DeVry marked the first instance of borrower defense to repayment relief for students who attended an institution that remains open and continues to access federal financial aid funding. A copy of the motion seeking approval of the Sweet settlement is available at https://predatorystudentlending.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Sweet-Settlement-Agreement.pdf[GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 22-cv-03668, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities between March 18, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") against Upstart and certain of its officers (collectively "Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities during the Class Period, you have until July 12, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. For information about joining the class action, click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=UPST Upstart is a financial technology firm that uses artificial intelligence ("AI") and data science to underwrite consumer credit. The Company partners with banks to offer credit to consumers, either through the Upstart website or through banking partner websites embedded with Upstart technology. Upstart claims that its underwriting process allows banking partners to originate credit with higher approval rates, lower loss rates, and a high degree of automation. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants claimed that the lack of loans the Company retained on its balance sheet ensured it only was exposed to limited credit risk. In reality, as investors learned after markets closed on May 9, 2022, the Company's highly touted, AI underwriting model was unable to adequately assess credit risk in changing macroeconomic conditions. As a result, Upstart had been increasingly underwriting progressively less creditworthy loans throughout the Class Period. Investors learned the truth during the Company's first quarter 2022 earnings call with analysts when Upstart admitted that the loans the Company had been forced to retain on its balance sheet had more than doubled in a single quarter. Specifically, Chief Financial Officer Sanjay Datta ("Datta") reported that the "balance of loans, notes, and residuals at the end of the quarter was . . . up to $604 million from $261 million in Q4." Datta attributed the increase of loans on the Company's balance sheet to "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies putting downward pressure on conversion." Datta acknowledged that "historically, [the Company's] balance sheet has been almost exclusively for the purposes of R&D," but in the first quarter of 2022, the Company used the balance "to do . . . sort of a market clearing mechanism." He further stated that Upstart had "started to selectively use [its] capital as a funding buffer for core personal loans in periods of interest rate fluctuation where the market clearing price is in flux." Reporting on the Company's results, one analyst dismissed the Company's purported "market clearing" justification and explained that the increase in loans on the Company's balance sheet represented a "divergence" from the Company's "capital-light business model" that indicated the Company had "few alternatives other than to hold more loans due to funding issues." In response to this disclosure, the price of Upstart common stock cratered 56% the following trading day, from a closing price of $77.13 on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $33.61 on May 10, 2022. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] VIATRIS INC: Settles EpiPen Antitrust Class Action for $264 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------- Loren McCune, writing for Echemi.com, reports that just as Biocon signs off on a $3.3 billion buyout of their shared biosimilars business, Viatris's pending lawsuit for its controversial EpiPen might be no more -- if the court signs off on it. Keeping details short, the pharma snuck in an announcement about its EpiPen product in its Q4 report: The Company has agreed, subject to approval by the Court, to a $264 million settlement, while denying any allegation of wrongdoing, to resolve the EpiPen Auto-Injector indirect purchaser class action cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The pharma added that "the Board of Directors believes that this settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its stakeholders. The resolution of these indirect purchaser cases will allow the Company to move forward and continue focusing on its strategic priorities." Biosimilars unite: Looking for commercial consolidation, Biocon buys out longtime partner Viatris for $3.3B [GN] VIKING RIVER: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Ruling on FAA Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Levin, Esq. and Steven W. Suflas, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, disclosed that the U.S. Supreme Court has once again confirmed that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts incompatible state laws that preclude contracting parties from controlling which claims are subject to arbitration. Ruling in favor of the employer in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the Court held that the California courts erred in refusing to compel arbitration of an employee's individual claim under the State's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). PAGA authorizes any "aggrieved employee" to bring an action against a former employer "on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees" to obtain civil penalties that previously could have been recovered only by the State in an administrative enforcement action. There are two components to a PAGA action: "individual" PAGA claims are premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by the plaintiff, while "representative" PAGA claims are premised on events involving other employees. In a 2014 decision, Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court held that predispute agreements that waive the right to bring representative PAGA claims are invalid as a matter of public policy and that individual and representative PAGA claims cannot be resolved separately. The employment agreement in Viking River contained a class action waiver providing that in any arbitral proceeding, the parties could not bring any dispute as a class, collective, or representative PAGA action. It also contained a severability clause specifying that if the waiver was found invalid, any class, collective, or representative PAGA action would be litigated in court, but if any portion of the waiver remained valid, it would be enforced in arbitration. After leaving her position at Viking, Moriana filed a PAGA action alleging that the company failed to provide her with final wages within 72 hours as required by the California Labor Code. Her complaint also asserted a wide array of other code violations allegedly sustained by other Viking employees. Viking moved to compel arbitration of Moriana's individual PAGA claim and to dismiss her representative PAGA claims. The trial court denied Viking's motion and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under Iskanian, PAGA claims could not be split into arbitrable individual claims and non-arbitrable representative claims. In an opinion by Justice Alito (in which all of the other Justices but Justice Thomas joined or concurred in part), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that Iskanian was preempted by the FAA insofar as it imposed an "expansive rule of joinder in the arbitral context" that precluded the parties from dividing PAGA actions into individual and representative claims in their arbitration agreement. The Court emphasized: A state rule imposing an expansive rule of joinder in the arbitral context would defeat the ability of parties to control which claims are subject to arbitration. Such a rule would permit parties to superadd new claims to the proceeding, regardless of whether the agreement between them committed those claims to arbitration. Requiring arbitration procedures to include a joinder rule of that kind compels parties to either go along with an arbitration in which the range of issues under consideration is determined by coercion rather than consent, or else forgo arbitration altogether. Either way, the parties are coerced into giving up a right they enjoy under the FAA . . .. When made compulsory by way of Iskanian, the joinder rule internal to PAGA functions in exactly this way. Under that rule, parties cannot agree to restrict the scope of an arbitration to disputes arising out of a particular "transaction" or "common nucleus of facts." . . .. If the parties agree to arbitrate "individual" PAGA claims based on personally sustained violations, Iskanian allows the aggrieved employee to abrogate that agreement after the fact and demand either judicial proceedings or an arbitral proceeding that exceeds the scope jointly intended by the parties. The only way for parties to agree to arbitrate one of an employee's PAGA claims is to also "agree" to arbitrate all other PAGA claims in the same arbitral proceeding. The effect of Iskanian's rule mandating this mechanism is to coerce parties into withholding PAGA claims from arbitration . . . Iskanian's indivisibility rule effectively coerces parties to opt for a judicial forum rather than "forgo[ing] the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution." . . . This result is incompatible with the FAA. As support for its holding, the Court cited its previous landmark FAA preemption decisions in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. Although the Court found that Moriana's representative claims were not preempted by the FAA due to PAGA's "unique features," it concluded that those claims should nevertheless be dismissed for lack of statutory standing since "PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate . . . [representative] PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding." Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. However, this is not the last word on representative PAGA actions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the majority, but added that the ruling relies on the Court's view that PAGA does not permit a plaintiff to proceed in court with non-individual claims, if her individual claims are arbitrable. California's courts and legislature are best suited to address a PAGA plaintiff's standing to litigate "non-individual" claims. She wrote: "If this court's understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word. Alternatively, if this court's understanding is right, the California Legislature is free to modify the scope of statutory standing under PAGA within state and federal constitutional limits." It remains to be seen how California responds to these invitations. [GN] WALMART ASSOCIATES: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CARLOS, as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00294-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to continue hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to July 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QN98GQ at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Garcia ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO GARCIA, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for decertification and dismissal of the Plaintiff's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. The Court finds the class claims manageable. In claim two of the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of all civil penalties for the Defendants' violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203 as a "proxy for the State of California and on behalf of other Aggrieved Employees" pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's PAGA claims are derivative of his underlying Labor Code claims, thus adjudicating the PAGA claims presents the same issues of 18 individualized determination which makes class treatment unmanageable. Claims asserted pursuant to the PAGA are not subject to the class certification requirements of Rule 23. In addition, a federal court may strike a PAGA claim that "cannot be rendered manageable," the Court says. This is a class action alleging the Defendants violate California Labor Code sections 201-203 by failing to pay its separating employees, whether involuntarily terminated or voluntarily resigned, all final wages within the timing requirements set forth by statute. The Defendants, the self-proclaimed largest retailer in the world, employ millions of workers worldwide. In California, from February 1, 2015, to November 23, 2018, the Defendants terminated 175, 684 workers. On the termination or separation date, Human Resources staff initiates a calculation request to determine the amount to be paid as final wages to 6 the former employee. Defendants provide a written check to the former employee for wages due at the point of termination. At times, Defendants' calculation of the employee's final wages is not based on all wages the employee is owed because the Defendants' payroll and timekeeping systems and databases do not reflect all earned wages due and owing to the former employee at the time of termination. As a result, the Defendants then pay employees additional wages, earned prior to termination, after the former employee's termination. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 12, 2018, seeking (1) waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203 and (2) penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. ("PAGA") alleging that he was not paid all of his earned wages at the time of termination. On August 26, 2019, the Court certified a class consisting of: "All individuals who worked for Defendants in the State of California whose employment ended at any time from February 1, 2015, through the present, and who received a Statement of Final Pay and then received any additional wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) on Defendants' on-cycle payroll immediately subsequent to the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the individual." This Court also certified the following subclass: "Any and all individuals who worked for Defendants in the State of California whose employment ended at any time from February 1, 2015, through the present, and who received a Statement of Final Pay and then received any additional wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) more than 3 days after the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay on Defendants' on- cycle payroll immediately subsequent to the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the individual." Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HSDkw8 at no extra charge.[CC] WATERLOO CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Zogopoulos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG ZOGOPOULOS, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATERLOO CAR WASH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00557 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2022) is a collective action by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, against their employer for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Beginning on March 12, 2019, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 7 and 15 of the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Mr. Zogopoulos was at all times material employed by Defendant from March 12, 2019, to the present, as a "Detail Manager" at the regular rate of $10.50 per hour, plus tips, in Travis County, Texas. Waterloo Car Wash, LLC is a car wash service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com WELLS FARGO: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $3.75 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Mindock, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $3.75 million to put away claims from a proposed class of investors who say the bank facilitated a yearslong, $135 million Ponzi scheme through the real estate investment firm EquityBuild Inc. [GN] WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Settlement in Cleveland Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elisabeth Cleveland, Amy Larchuk, Christopher Redmon, Dhaval Shah and Thomas McCormick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-01906-WMW-JFD (D. Minn), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order granting plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees. 1. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. a. The Settlement Class is finally certified, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. b. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as being fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. c. The Plaintiffs Elisabeth Cleveland, Amy Larchuk, Christopher Redmon, Dhaval Shah and Thomas McCormick are confirmed as Class Representatives. d. Harper Segui and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, are confirmed as Class Counsel. e. The Court confirms that the Notice Plan complied with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. f. All Settlement Class Members who timely requested exclusion are excluded from the Settlement. The Settlement Class Members who did not timely request exclusion are hereby bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards, is granted. a. The Court awards Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees of $1,456,002.33. b. The Court awards Class Counsel $33,997.67 in litigation costs. c. The Court approves service awards of $2,500 for each Class Representative. 3. Without affecting the finality of this Order and the judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of resolving disputes related to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. The Whirlpool Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HQoAxY at no extra charge.[CC] XCEL ENERGY: Settles Suit Over Price-Fixing Claims for $2.5 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- TopClassActions.com reports that Xcel Energy and e-Prime Energy agreed to pay $2.5 million as part of a settlement to resolve class action lawsuit claims of a price-fixing plan between numerous utility companies. The settlement benefits consumers and companies who purchased natural gas from e-Prime Energy Marketing Inc. or Xcel Energy Inc. in Colorado from Jan. 1, 2000, to Oct. 31, 2002. Xcel Energy and e-Prime Energy are utility companies that provide power and gas to consumers across the country. Consumers pay for these services based on their usage and prices of natural gas in their area. According to a class action lawsuit against numerous power companies, Xcel and e-Prime Energy worked with other businesses to artificially raise the price of natural gas. An unlawful agreement allegedly allowed the companies to charge a higher price for natural gas across the board without having to compete with each other through competitive rates. The defendants allegedly supported this scheme through false prices posted in trade publications and wash trades -- a type of market manipulation that mimics actual trading activity. As a result of these actions, consumers in Colorado allegedly paid more for natural gas services than they would have in a competitive market. In addition to naming Xcel Energy and e-Prime Energy Marketing, the class action lawsuit targeted companies alleged to have worked with them on the price-fixing plan, such as CenterPoint Energy Services, Shell Energy, Reliant Energy, Williams Energy, ONEOK Energy and more. This massive class action lawsuit was first filed in 2006 -- over 15 years ago. Since then, certain defendants have agreed to partial settlements in Wisconsin, Missouri and Kansas. Now, e-Prime Energy Marketing and Xcel Energy agreed to resolve Colorado claims with a $2.5 million lawsuit settlement. Further settlements with other defendants or in other states may be reached in the future. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can collect a portion of the settlement fund. Payments will vary depending on a number of factors including how many class members chose to participate in the settlement. Each class member will receive a proportional share of the settlement fund based on the volume of natural gas they paid the defendants for. The deadline for exclusion and objection was May 11, 2021.[GN] YEXT INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of August 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston on June 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Yext, Inc. ("Yext" or the "Company") (NYSE: YEXT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Yext stock between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (2) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 8, 2022, the Company issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, the Company reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter ("Q1") fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of $0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17, versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed the departure of its CEO and CFO. That same day, on a conference call to discuss the Company's Q4 and FY fiscal 2022 results, the Company's incoming CEO, Michael Walrath ("Walrath"), addressed the Company's disappointing financial results, revealing, inter alia, that "we have seen fragmentation in our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium service and support" and that, "[i]n hindsight, it is clear we were too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales enablement, training, client success and services." Walrath also disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]" while opining that the Company could "[a]bsolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's more efficient during disruptions like that[.]" Following that call, a Truist Securities analyst lowered the firm's rating on the Company to hold from buy and slashed its price target to $6 from $17, noting, among other things, that key performing indicators showed an "unexpected slowdown" in Q4, guidance for fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that "planned changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy, sales organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a meaningful and sustainable revival in growth is unclear[.]" Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Yext should contact the Firm prior to the August 16, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] YOUNG NAILS: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YOUNG NAILS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04803 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website youngnails.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. Young Nails, Inc. is a professional nail care manufacturing company.[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 ********* 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 ***