/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220805.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 5, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 150
Headlines
17 EDUCATION: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 19 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Court Dismisses Amended Consolidated Securities Suit
3M COMPANY: Dixon Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Dwyer Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Faces Siemssen Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
3M COMPANY: Faces Wagers Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
A-1 COLLECTION: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Memoranda
AFSCME COUNCIL 13: 3rd Circuit Affirms Schaszberger Dismissal
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing Extended
AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 6 Deadline
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Agrees to Ritas Label Changes Under Settlement
APACHE CORPORATION: Allen, et al., Seek to Certify Settlement Class
APH GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Alleges
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Case Management Order Entered in Krassick
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Settlement in Donofriom Suit Gets Final Nod
AVNET INC: $30K Class Settlement in Heikkia Wage Suit Gets Approval
BANK OF AMERICA: Claims of Unnamed Class Members in Brooks Tossed
BAYER CORPORATION: Corpuz Sues Over Mislabeled Furit Bite Product
BROWN COUNTY SENIOR: Class in Weaver Suit Conditionally Certified
BTA OIL: Court Moots Bid to Certify Class in Ricks Suit
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Former Employees File Background Check Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Stipulation on Class Cert. Continuance OK'd
CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Nov. 23
CLOVER NETWORK: Bobo Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Allowed to Leave to File Notice in Palmer
COLUMBUS, OH: Landlords, Tenants Mull Class Action v. CMHA
DIGITAL RISK: Stipulation Continuing Class Cert Sched Filed
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz Loses Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OKs Settlement of RICO Claims
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Exchange Act Violation
FIVE GUYS: Conditional Certification of Settlement Class Sought
FLORIDA DOC: Harvard Loses Class Certification Bid
FONDA EL CRIOLLITO: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Mendez Suit Says
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Aug 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
FORD MOTOR: Super Duty Power Stroke Class Action Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Time to File Reply to Tucker Opposition Extended
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Court Sets Class Cert Briefing Schedule
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Schedule
FREY BROTHERS: Lebaron Sues Over Auto Renewal of Free Subscriptions
FUNDING METRICS: Court Upholds Validity of Class Action Waiver
G & S PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Schilling Suit Claims
GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Defines Class Period in Securities Suit
GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Sets Class Period in Securities Suit
HITACHI LTD: ODD Price-Fixing Class Action Settled for $29.7-Mil.
HOME DEPOT: Georgia Court Dismisses Carson TCPA Suit With Prejudice
HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Restricts Access to Opposition Filings
HYATT CORPORATION: Court Amends Pretrial Schedule in Eli Class Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Car Owners May Be Eligible for Engine Replacement
INNOVATION MARKETING: Court Tosses Bid to Set Aside Judgment
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Leave to File Clarification
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal
IVERIC BIO: Hearing on Settlement Approval Set for September
KOLD TRANS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Date Set for Jan 18, 2023
LIFECORE FITNESS: Valiente TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
LOUISIANA DOC: Humphrey, et al., Seek to Certify Class
MAMACITA'S INC: Melara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Servers
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Flynn, et al., Seek Class Certification
MARATHON CHEESE: Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order Entered
MARCUS POLLARD: Fitzgerald Files Seeks to Certify Class
MATRIX ABSENCE: Seeks to Strike Weeks Bid for Class Status
MEDCOM MEDICAL: Faces TCPA Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages
META PLATFORMS: Faces Doe Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Okayed
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 12 Deadline
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
MOTTS LLP: Trujillo Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Benscoter Breach Suit Goes to M.D. Pennsylvania
NCAA: Ruling Gives Judges Lesson on High-Rank Exec Depositions
NEW SOUTH WALES: Festival Patrons File Suit Over Strip Searches
NISSAN NORTH: Ayala, et al, Seek to Certify Class
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks to Extend Class Cert Response to Aug. 12
NOMI HEALTH: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL: Court Revives Miami Gardens Suit
PARKASH 1630: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
PHARMACARE US: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: October 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Won't Disseminate Class Notice in Edwards Suit
PLAID INC: Class Action Settlement in Cottle Suit Gets Final Nod
POWERFORCE OF HOUSTON: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Williams Claims
PRATT AND WHITNEY: Faces Antitrust Class Suits
PROPETRO HOLDING: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Under Seal
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Retirees' Suit Over Pension Plan
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, CA: Parties Stipulate Class Status in Norbert
SCOPA6 LLC: Underpays Pizzeria Staff, Maldonado Suit Claims
SCORES HOLDING: Federal Court Issues Discontinuance of Claims
SMITHFIELD DIRECT: Judgment Entered on Kane Class Action Deal
SPLUNK INC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
STANTEC CONSULTING: Gotta, et al., Seek to Certify Class Claims
STEMILT AG: Garcia, et al., Seek to Clarify Certified FLCA Claims
SUNCORP GROUP: Settles Suit for $33-Mil., Sept. 22 Hearing Set
TARGET CORPORATION: Torres Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. California
TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 19 Deadline
TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
TOUR RESOURCE: Court Junks Delcavo's Bid for Summary Judgment
TRAVEL RESORTS: Faces McCoy Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TURKEY HILL: Summers Files Suit Over General Managers' Unpaid OT
TWITTER INC: Delaware Court OKs Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
TWITTER INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger
TWITTER INC: Settlement of Shareholder Suit for Court Approval
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in Boston Retirement Suit
UNISYS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brunswick Alleges
UNITED STATES: Calixto Seeks More Time to File Reply to Opposition
UNITED STATES: Joint Bid to Partially Amend Scheduling Order Sought
UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Property Damages Class
UNITED STATES: Tanner-Brown Seeks Amendment of Court Order
UNITY SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 6 Deadline
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Track Coach Sexual Abuse Class Suit Dropped
VANGUARD SOAP: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Faison Claims
VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Tossed
VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Dismissal of Entire Cannavan Action Extended
VIVINT SOLAR: Trial in Dekker Suit Pushed Back
VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Parties File 4th Request for Time Extension
WALMART INC: Deadline Extension to File Bids to Seal Sought
WELLS FARGO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 29 Deadline
WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks to Defer Ruling on Time Extension Bid
XPO LAST: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority
ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Bid to Set Aside Final Judgment Denied
ZYNGA INC: Rider to Protective Order on Amazon.com Discovery OK'd
[*] Downward Trend of U.S. Securities Class Actions Continues
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,614 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Still Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Cos. Still Faces A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $977MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Defends 7,000 PI Claims as of June 30
*********
17 EDUCATION: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 25 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's) of 17 Education & Technology
Group Inc. (NASDAQ: YQ) ("17 EdTech") pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with 17 EdTech's
December 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO").
All investors who purchased the ADR's of 17 Education & Technology
Group Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the
action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of 17 Education &
Technology Group Inc., you may, no later than September 19, 2022,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your
rights as an investor in the ADR's of 17 Education & Technology
Group Inc.
According to the filed complaint, the Registration Statement
featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
Defendant 17 EdTech's K-12 Academic AST Services would end less
than a year after the IPO;
-- as part of its ongoing regulatory efforts, Chinese
authorities would imminently curtail and/or end 17 EdTech's core
business; and
-- as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On December 4, 2020, 17 EdTech issued its IPO of ADR's, selling
approximately 27,400,000 ADR's at $10.50 per ADR, which when
adjusted for the reverse split (1:4) on November 21, 2021, is
$44.00 per ADR. Since the IPO, 17 EdTech's ADRs have traded as low
as $0.88 per ADR, and are currently trading at $1.94 per ADR.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
360 DIGITECH: Court Dismisses Amended Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re 360 DigiTech, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 21 Civ. 6013 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted:
a. Digitech's motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint; and
b. the Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain exhibits submitted
in conjunction with the motion to dismiss.
Digitech, a Chinese company that trades in the U.S. via American
depositary shares, provides financial services to borrowers and
lenders, in part through its downloadable app. The Plaintiffs
allege, in relevant part, that the Defendant made a series of
misrepresentations concerning its compliance with regulations
governing collection of user data.
Digitech, the only defendant to appear to date, moved to dismiss
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 25, 2022,
Judge Hellerstein held oral argument on the motion to dismiss and
also considered the Plaintiffs' motion to strike.
After hearing extended argument regarding the bases for the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Hellerstein found that the Plaintiffs'
allegations were legally insufficient because the alleged
misrepresentations were either puffery, or the Plaintiff had failed
to plead the particular nature of any falsity. The Plaintiff failed
to allege that Digitech's practices violated Chinese law in effect
prior to May 1, 2021; what specific laws Digitech before that time;
or what specific acts or practices violated those laws.
Additionally, as the Complaint itself reflects, Chinese law and
regulations regarding data collection were continually evolving
before and during the class period, and enforcement became
increasingly strict. Digitech adequately disclosed this regulatory
landscape and the attendant risks such that a reasonable investor
could not have been misled.
Although Judge Hellerstein did not rule on other issues presented
in the briefs, he commented that additional information is needed
in the Plaintiffs' pleading. Alleging scienter with particularity,
especially with respect to the individual defendants, requires
additional specificity to be legally sufficient. Adequately
pleading loss causation requires the Plaintiffs to differentiate
the cause of the alleged loss from general market fluctuations that
may have affected the entire industry or entire market.
Judge Hellerstein granted the motion to strike docket entries 47-5,
47-9 to 47-12, and 47-16 to 47-23; and the motion to dismiss. As he
noted at oral argument, the Plaintiffs are granted leave to
replead. Any amended complaint is due by Sept. 26, 2022. The Clerk
will terminate ECF Nos. 45 and 50.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yy3hrrn9 from Leagle.com.
3M COMPANY: Dixon Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02370-RMG
(D.S.C., July 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder cancer, alleges the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Dwyer Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD DWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02373-RMG
(D.S.C., July 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Siemssen Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA SIEMSSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02372-RMG (D.S.C., July 22, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
thyroidectomy, the suit added.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Wagers Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN WAGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02374-RMG
(D.S.C., July 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02399-RMG
(D.S.C., July 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
A-1 COLLECTION: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Memoranda
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, JOSH BURT,
SEAN MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, v.
A-1 COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case
No. 4:20-cv-00143-HCN-PK (D. Utah), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their stipulated motion and extending the
deadline for the Defendants to file their memoranda responding to
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class until Monday, August 15,
2022.
The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
is currently due on Monday, July 25, 2022.
Due to deadlines and commitments in other matters, Defendants have
requested that Plaintiffs grant Defendants a three-week extension
of time to file their responsive memoranda.
The Plaintiffs have agreed to Defendants' requested extension and
have stipulated that the deadline for Defendants to file their
memoranda in response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class may
be extended three weeks to August 15, 2022.
A-1 Collection Agency is a debt collection agency located in Grand
Junction, Colorado.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oEKeMH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Baczynski, Esq.
BACZYNSKI LAW, PLLC
The Defendants are represented by:
Ronald F. Price, Esq.
Alan Dunaway, Esq.
PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC
5742 West Harold Gatty Drive, Suite 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Telephone: (801) 530-2900
E-mail: ronprice@ppktrial.com
alandunaway@ppktrial.com
AFSCME COUNCIL 13: 3rd Circuit Affirms Schaszberger Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID SCHASZBERGER; BRADFORD SCHMITTLE; KYLE CLOUSE;
COLBY CONNER; JEANETTE HULSE; GARY LANDIAK, Appellants, v. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 13, Case
No. 21-2172 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirms the District Court's order granting American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13's
motion to dismiss.
The case arises out of the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v.
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), in which the Court held that the
collection of agency shop fees from nonconsenting employees by the
state or public-sector unions was a violation of the First
Amendment. American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees Council 13, a Pennsylvania government employee union, had
previously been collecting these "fair-share" fees, pursuant to
then-binding Supreme Court precedent and Pennsylvania state law.
The Appellants, non-AFSCME members who worked in units represented
by AFSCME, were subject to these fees.
After the Supreme Court found these fees to be unconstitutional,
the Appellants filed the putative class action to recover the
fair-share fees AFSCME collected from them prior to the Janus
decision. The District Court granted AFSCME's motion to dismiss,
finding AFSCME was shielded from liability by virtue of its good
faith reliance on then-controlling Supreme Court precedent and
state law.
Like many states, Pennsylvania enacted a law providing that "if the
provisions of a collective bargaining agreement so provide, each
nonmember of a collective bargaining unit will be required to pay
to the exclusive representative a fair share fee." AFSCME served as
the exclusive representative for several bargaining units
throughout Pennsylvania, including Appellants' units. In 2016,
pursuant to 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 575, AFSCME negotiated a
Master Agreement with Pennsylvania for the collection of service
fees from nonmember employees.
But in 2018, the Supreme Court reversed its views with respect to
fair-share fees and overruled Abood in Janus. The Court held "the
First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person
to pay for another party's speech just because the government
thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who
does not want to pay." This decision rendered statutes like 71 Pa.
Stat. Ann. Section 575 unconstitutional, meaning states and
public-sector unions could no longer extract agency fees from
nonconsenting employees. After the Court issued this decision,
AFSCME promptly ceased its collection of fair-share fees.
During the relevant time, the Appellants were state employees whose
jobs fell within a classification covered by AFSCME but who were
not dues-paying members of the union. Prior to Janus, AFSCME
collected fair-share fees from Appellants. As noted, Appellants
filed a suit on Nov. 7, 2019, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated
employees, contending they should be able to recover the fair-share
fees AFSCME collected from them prior to Janus.
The trial judge granted AFSCME's motion to dismiss, holding that
"unions sued for a refund of pre-Janus fair-share fees can assert
the good-faith defense." Accordingly, the trial judge found that
because AFSCME relied in good faith on both a Pennsylvania state
statute and unambiguous Supreme Court precedent in extracting these
fees, the good faith defense shielded it from liability for
Appellants' claims under Section 1983.
It is not the first time such a case has come before the Third
Circuit. In Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association,
972 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2020), the plaintiff made allegations
substantially similar to the ones brought by the Appellants. A
divided panel of colleagues found for the Diamond union and
affirmed the trial judge's grant of the motion to dismiss. Judge
Rendell concluded the Diamond union was entitled to a good faith
defense, because "private defendants should not be held liable
under Section 1983 absent a showing of malice and evidence that
they either knew or should have known of the statute's
constitutional infirmity."
Judge Fisher concurred in the judgment, but disagreed with Judge
Rendell's reasoning. Instead, Judge Fisher found the Diamond union
was entitled to a specific defense available at common law that
exempted the union from liability absent a showing of fraud or
duress. Judge Phipps dissented, finding "a good faith affirmative
defense" did not exist for this type of Section 1983 claim because
the defense was not firmly rooted at common law.
The Third Circuit is bound by its decisions, and accordingly, must
decide if an opinion in Diamond controls in the Schaszberger case.
The only common denominator in the Diamond majority is the ultimate
outcome of the case, and thus the Third Circuit is not bound by the
reasoning of either opinion.
The Appellants urge the Third Circuit to read Judge Fisher's and
Judge Phipps' opinions regarding the lack of a good faith defense
as controlling precedent. The Third Circuit has previously "looked
to the votes of dissenting Justices if they, combined with votes
from plurality or concurring opinions, establish a majority view on
the relevant issue." But even in these cases, the cobbled-together
collective is only persuasive, rather than binding, authority.
Accordingly, while the three opinions in Diamond should be
considered for their persuasive value, the Third Circuit believes
none constitutes binding authority in the Schaszberger case.
Because Diamond does not control its decision in the Schaszberger
case, the Third Circuit turns to the question of whether the
Appellee is entitled to a good faith defense. The Third Circuit
holds a good faith defense exists, where, as in the case, the
Appellee relied on then-controlling Supreme Court precedent and
state law. Accordingly, when determining whether Congress intended
to confer immunity, the Third Circuit looks to the "most closely
analogous torts" to see whether there was an immunity at common
law. The Appellants encourage the Third Circuit to find this
directive applies to determining "the elements or defenses to
constitutional claims under Section 1983" with respect to private
party defendants.
The Third Circuit agrees with the Ninth Circuit in finding it would
be "neither 'equal' nor 'fair' for a private party's entitlement to
a good faith defense to turn not on the innocence of its actions
but rather on the elements of an 1871 tort that the party is not
charged with committing." Accordingly, the Third Circuit joins a
growing list of its sister circuits in recognizing a good faith
defense for Section 1983 private defendants who relied on
then-controlling Supreme Court precedent and then-existing state
law. Because AFSCME relied in good faith on both Janus and 71 Pa.
Stat. Ann. Section 575, it is entitled to a good faith defense, the
Third Circuit says, affirming the lower court's judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8w3cd4 from Leagle.com.
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE
EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL
REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO; SCOTT ABBEY and all
others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN,
SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar
entered an order extending certain deadlines for briefing on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows:
1. The deadline for defendants to file their oppositions to
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is extended
from July 29, 2022 to August 26, 2022.
2. The deadline for plaintiffs to file their reply in support
of their motion for class certification is extended from
August 19, 2022 to September 16, 2022.
Alameda County is located in the state of California in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SbV6PH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cortlin h. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Cchaput, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
- and -
Eric C. Bosset, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter, 850 10th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
Facsimile: (202) 662-6291
E-mail: ebosset@cov.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Amazon common stock between July 30, 2021, and
April 28, 2022, inclusive.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Amazon, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=30147&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Amazon includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's infrastructure
and fulfillment network investments substantially outpaced demand;
2) those investments were a massive, self-imposed, undue drain on
Amazon's financial condition; 3) contrary to defendants' public
statements and undisclosed to investors, defendants had already
implemented cutbacks to Amazon's fulfillment capacity by July 2021;
and 4) as a result of defendants' misrepresentations and omissions,
Amazon's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the class period.
DEADLINE: September 6, 2022
Aggrieved Amazon investors only have until September 6, 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]
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Agrees to Ritas Label Changes Under Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anheuser
Busch LLC has agreed to label changes and cash payments to resolve
allegations that it deceptively marketed its cocktail-named Ritas
drinks, according to a Missouri federal court filing seeking
initial approval of a nationwide class settlement.
Megan Browning, Adam Kesselring, and others alleged the "Sparkling
Margarita" drinks contain no tequila, "Mojito" drinks are made
without rum, and "Sangria" and "Rosé" drinks lack wine. The drinks
are nothing more than flavored beer, they said.
Anheuser-Busch has agreed to add the words "Malt Beverage" on the
drinks' packaging and to include disclaimers on the product
websites noting that the drinks don't contain distilled spirits,
the July 25 filing said.
The settlement covers those who purchased any of the products
between Jan. 1, 2018, and the date the US District Court for the
Western District of Missouri grants preliminary approval.
Class members with proof of purchase may recover up to $21.25 per
household. Those without purchase substantiation are eligible for
up to $9.75 per household.
Should the settlement class members submit more than one million
claims, irrespective of the total dollar amount, Anheuser-Busch has
the unconditional right, but not the obligation, to terminate the
agreement. If it does so, the brewer must give written notice to
class counsel within 10 days of the claim submissions.
The plaintiffs' attorneys may seek up to $2.1 million in fees and
costs, and may request service awards up to $2,500 for each of the
six class representatives. Anheuser-Busch retains the right to
oppose those awards.
Judge Stephen R. Bough oversees the case.
Last year, the court advanced the lawsuit, ruling that Browning and
Kesselring sufficiently alleged the company's portrayal would
likely mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking the drinks have
the alcohol associated with their names when they really don't.
A similar suit in the Southern District of New York was voluntarily
dismissed. That court previously had allowed claims under New York
consumer protection law.
Dollar, Burns, Becker, & Hershewe LC and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
represent the plaintiffs. Dowd Bennett LLP represents
Anheuser-Busch.
The case is Browning v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, W.D. Mo., No.
4:20-cv-00889, motion 7/18/22. [GN]
APACHE CORPORATION: Allen, et al., Seek to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT STEVEN ALLEN and
RANDY MARK ALLEN, v. APACHE CORPORATION, Case No. 6:22-cv-00063-JAR
(E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes;
2. Preliminarily approving the Settlement;
3. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class;
4. Appointing Nix Patterson, LLP and Ryan Whaley Coldiron
Jantzen Peters & Webber PLLC as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class, and Whitten Burrage and Lawrence Murphy,
Jr. as liaison local counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. Approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
Settlement to the Settlement Class;
6. Appointing a Settlement Administrator;
7. Appointing an Escrow Agent; and
8. Setting a hearing date for final approval of the
Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys'
Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to
Plaintiffs.
Apache Corporation is an oil and gas exploration and production
company with operations world wide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zJM3OO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
Trey Duck, Esq.
Winn Cutler, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
8701 Bee Cave Road
Building 1, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
jangelovich@nixlaw.com
lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
dpate@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
winncutler@nixlaw.com
- and -
Susan Whatley, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
P.O. Box 178
Linden, TX 75563
Telephone: (903) 215-8310
E-mail: swhatley@nixlaw.com
- and -
Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
Paula M. Jantzen, Esq.
RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN
PETERS & WEBBER PLLC
400 N. Walnut Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 239-6040
Facsimile: (405) 239-6766
E-mail: pryan@ryanwhaley.com
jryan@ryanwhaley.com
pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com
- and -
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
- and -
Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
SMOLEN LAW
611 S. Detroit Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 777-4529
E-mail: larry@smolen.law
APH GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
UBALDO ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. APH GROUP LLC; and CARLOS PATEL,
individually, and ASHOK PATEL, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04350 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Arias was employed by the Defendant as construction
worker.
operates a construction services and management business that
performs building renovations and remodeling projects, with its
principal place of business in East Elmhurst, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Case Management Order Entered in Krassick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY KRASSICK v.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00180-HYJ-RSK
(W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an case
management order as follows:
-- Motions or Stipulations to Join September 12, 2022
Parties or Amend Pleadings:
-- Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures
(including lay witnesses)
Plaintiff: August 2, 2022
Defendant: August 2, 2022
The Archaeological Institute of America is the oldest society in
North America and the largest organization devoted to the world of
archaeology.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OOK1RI at no extra charge.[CC]
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Settlement in Donofriom Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
n the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Donofriom individually
an on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, v.
Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company, Case No.
3:19-cv-00058-WHR-SLO (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Walter H. Rice
entered an order:
1. finally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only, as identified in the Settlement Agreement,
defined as follows:
a. All policyholders within the Settlement Class, but
excluding
(i) policyholders whose claims arose under policy forms,
endorsements, or riders expressly permitting
Nonmaterial Depreciation within the text of the
policy form, endorsement or rider ;
(ii) policyholders who received one or more ACV Payments
for claims, but not replacement cost value payments,
that exhausted the applicable limits of insurance;
(iii) policyholders whose claims were denied or abandoned
without ACV Payment;
(iv) the Defendant and its officers and directors;
(v) members of the judiciary and their staff to whom
this action is assigned and their immediate
families; and
(vi) Class Counsel and their immediate families.
b. "Settlement Class" means, except for Exclusions, all of
Defendant's property insurance policyholders who made a
Structural Loss claim:
(a) for property located in the State of Ohio during the
applicable Class Periods as defined in Section 2.12;
that
(b) resulted in an ACV Payment from which Nonmaterial
Depreciation was withheld, or that would have
resulted in an ACV Payment but for the withholding
of Nonmaterial Depreciation causing the loss to drop
below the applicable deductible.
c. Class Periods mean the following time periods:
i. For policyholders with policies containing a one-
year suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims
with dates of loss on or after February 25, 2018.
ii. For policyholders with policies containing a two-
year suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims
with dates of loss on or after February 25, 2017.
2. appointing attorneys Erik D. Peterson, of Erik Peterson
Law Offices, PSC, and Stephen G. Whetstone, of Whetstone
Legal, LLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and
3. designating Representative Plaintiff Mary Donofrio as the
representative of the Settlement Class
Auto-Owners is a mutual insurance company that provides life, home,
car, and business insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OMJWOC at no extra charge.[CC]
AVNET INC: $30K Class Settlement in Heikkia Wage Suit Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Angela Determan Heikkia, et al., Plaintiffs v. Avnet
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-21-01531-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz.),
Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona grants the parties' Joint Motion to Approve the
Settlement Agreement and dismisses the case with prejudice.
On Sept. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the suit, alleging the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201, et seq. by failing to pay them overtime and other wages for
time worked over 40 hours in a workweek and for time worked "off
the clock." The parties engaged in written discovery requests and
briefed a motion for conditional certification. After agreeing that
the potential class size was small, they engaged in good-faith
settlement negotiations regarding the current two Plaintiffs and
concluded the matter could be resolved without a ruling on the
motion for conditional certification. Thereafter, they reached a
Settlement Agreement that resolved all claims.
In the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to settle the
Plaintiffs' claims under the following terms: (1) the Defendant
agrees to pay the total sum of $30,000 to the Plaintiffs and the
settlement amount represents payment for all of their claims
against it; (2) the Defendant has denied liability or wrongdoing
under the FLSA; (3) the Plaintiffs and Defendant agree to dismiss
the action with prejudice; (4) the parties have signed a release of
claims.
The allocation of the settlement includes one check to Ms. Heikkia
in the amount of $4,000, one check to Ms. Lopez in the gross amount
of $5,500, and one check to Sanford Law Firm, PLLC in the amount of
$20,500 for payment for attorneys' fees and costs. The Settlement
Agreement further states the parties agreed "no additional amounts
will be paid by Defendant for attorneys' fees of the Plaintiffs,
court costs, or for any other expenses or costs incurred by them
arising out of or in any way related to the action."
Judge Humetewa has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement
Approval and the attached exhibits, including the Settlement
Agreement itself. She finds that (i) its terms reflect a "fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" over FLSA overtime
provisions; (ii) the Settlement Amount is fair and equitable given
the parties' agreement that the proposed settlement represents a
reasonable compromise of the damages; (iii) the costs and
uncertainties of further litigation support the Settlement Amount;
(iv) the proposed distribution to each Plaintiff is fair and
equitable because the distribution reflects each Plaintiff's length
of employment with the Defendant and the number of hours each
worked for it; and (v) the record supports an award of attorneys'
fees and costs in the amount for which the Plaintiff seeks approval
because of the arms-length negotiation.
Accordingly, Judge Humetewa grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Settlement Approval and approves the Settlement Agreement and
Release of All Claims. The payments will be distributed in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The action is dismissed
with prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees
and costs, except as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p93sx87 from Leagle.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Claims of Unnamed Class Members in Brooks Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, Plaintiff v. BANK OF
AMERICA, NA, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-1348-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Robert S. Huie of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California dismisses all the claims of the unnamed
putative class members without prejudice.
In the operative first amended complaint, Brooks alleges that Bank
of America harmed his credit by wrongfully reporting to consumer
credit reporting agencies that hs had filed for bankruptcy and that
his BofA account had been "included in bankruptcy." Based on these
allegations, the FAC asserts claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq., and
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1785 et seq., on behalf of a putative class, and one
individual claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. The FAC implies that there is subject
matter jurisdiction based on a federal question under the FCRA, and
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law class claims.
On April 25, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why the
Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law class claims. As set forth in the Order, a district court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law
claim that "substantially predominates" over a claim for which the
court has original jurisdiction. The Order noted that the
"Plaintiff's federal and state claims arise from the 'common
nucleus' of Defendant's alleged furnishing of inaccurate
information to credit reporting agencies based on its bankruptcy
reporting procedures," but that the class claims "have the
potential to predominate over his individual FCRA claim."
In its response to the Order, BofA argues that while the FAC
asserts the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on a
federal question, the Court also has subject matter jurisdiction
over Brooks' individual claims based on diversity because Brooks
and BofA are diverse and more than $75,000 is in controversy on his
individual claims alone. It then contends that the Court may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of absent class
members in a case where the diverse named plaintiff's claims exceed
$75,000, but it does not address whether the Court should do so
here. Rather, BofA concludes only that the Court should find that
it has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity over
the Plaintiff's individual claims.
In his response to the Order, the Plaintiff "agrees that it is
within the Court's discretion and would be appropriate in this
context for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims." His response points out
that "there are vigorously contested certification issues which
pertain solely to the state claims and do not touch the federal
claim at all," including "interpretation of California law,
including whether there are relevant differences between the
available remedies under state law versus the FCRA, and the
implications of any such differences on class issues including
adequacy and predominance."
Judge Huie agrees with the analysis in both parties' responses.
First, for all the reasons set forth in BofA's response, Brooks and
BofA are diverse, and the amount in controversy on Brooks'
individual claims alone exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court has
original subject matter jurisdiction over all three of Brooks'
individual claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and need not
evaluate whether it can or should retain or decline supplemental
jurisdiction over his individual state law claims.
Second, Judge Huie agrees with Brooks that the state law claims of
absent class members substantially predominate over his individual
claims. Accordingly, for the reasons Brooks articulated in his
response to the Order, Judge Huie declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims of absent class members. The
absent class members are, of course, free to refile their class
claims in state court, subject to the tolling provisions of 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(d).
Because he declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
claims of the unnamed putative class members, and Judge Huie
dismisses all such claims without prejuidce. He denies as moot the
motion to certify a class and related motions to file under seal,
and motion to strike.
The case will proceed as an individual action on the Plaintiff's
claims under the UCL, CCRAA, and the FCRA.
Within three business days of the Order, the parties are instructed
to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major to
request a case management order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8tuze6 from Leagle.com.
BAYER CORPORATION: Corpuz Sues Over Mislabeled Furit Bite Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDISON CORPUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01085-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 25, 2022) seeks to remedy
the deceptive and misleading business practices the Defendant with
respect to the marketing and sales of Defendant's One a Day Natural
Fruit Bites products that represent that they are natural
("Products").
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers,
i.e., that its Products are natural; however, Defendant's
advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and
misleading because the Products contain non-natural, synthetic
ingredients.
Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive
representations and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class members
would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the Products
they purchased, says the suit.
BAYER CORPORATION operates as a pharmaceutical and life science
company. The Company researches, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of
diseases, as well as produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
and crop varieties. Bayer serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
BROWN COUNTY SENIOR: Class in Weaver Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE WEAVER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BROWN COUNTY
SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-TSB (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, opt-in
identification discovery, and court supervised notice to potential
opt-ion Plaintiffs.
The Court conditionally certifies the following class:
"All present and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who
performed home care and/or related services, from July 25,
2019, three years prior to the date of this Order, to the
present."
Within 21 days of this Order, Defendant shallL identify all
potential opt-in plaintiffs and provide a list, in an
electronic importable format, including their names,
addresses, and all known email addresses. Upon receiving the
list, Plaintiffs shall forthwith issue notice to potential
opt-in plaintiffs. The opt-in period SHALL remain open for 60
days after notice is sent.
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and Court-authorized notice to a
proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action to which
the Defendant has failed to respond.
The Defendant is an Ohio corporation operating a home health
agency. The Plaintiff Michelle Weaver worked as an hourly home
health aide for Defendant from April 2014 to January 2022.
The Plaintiff and other hourly home health aides at the Defendant's
residential care facilities are paid straight time for all hours
they work, including overtime hours. The Plaintiff has attached pay
stubs to her declaration that document this fact as to her. And
Plaintiff has provided declarations of two other home health aides
who worked for Defendant and were paid based on the same policy.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMmhPr at no extra charge.[CC]
BTA OIL: Court Moots Bid to Certify Class in Ricks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricks v. BTA Oil
Producers, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00206 (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Ronald C. Griffin entered an order mooting motion to certify
class.
The Court's Order Adopting the Joint Stipulation for Conditional
Certification, Notice, and Consent renders Plaintiff's Motion moot,
says the Court.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
BTA Oil Producers, LLC is an oil & energy company based out of 104
South Pecos, Midland, Texas.[CC]
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Former Employees File Background Check Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR, report that on July 19, 2022, a
former employee of a logistics company filed a class action lawsuit
that claimed the alleged procurement of background checks for
employment purposes without the required disclosures and written
authorization in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
according to a report on ClassAction.org.
The case Tony Nunley v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation,
et al.
Under FCRA Section 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)(ii) a background
check report may not be procured unless (i) a "clear and
conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer" in
a document that "consists solely of the disclosure" and (ii) the
"consumer has authorized in writing" the procurement of the
report.
A copy of the complaint available on ClassAction.org that was filed
in the United States District Court, Central District of California
stated that the plaintiff alleged "on information and belief" that
the defendant logistics company "failed to comply with the
requirements under the FCRA because they, among other things:
Included superfluous information within the disclosure . . .
Buried the disclosure with small font . . .
Failed to obtain proper authorization before procuring a consumer
report . . .
Included a liability waiver . . .
Included a purported authorization for third parties to release
information . . . and
Fail[ed] to include a summary of rights."
The report on ClassAction.org stated the lawsuit seeks to represent
current, former, and prospective employees of the logistics company
who applied for a job and had a background check performed within
the five years before the complaint was filed and until the date
that final judgment is entered. The report is available here.
The FCRA 15 U.S.C Sec. 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to
promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies, and to
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports. [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Spectrum violates the law by
contacting consumers with unsolicited marketing robocalls without
receiving consent, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff David K. Hicks claims Spectrum uses third-party vendors
to place unsolicited and automated sales calls to consumers like
himself who have never entered into a contract with the
telecommunications company or consent to be contacted on its
behalf.
Hicks argues Spectrum's alleged unsolicited sales calls are
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and have
been an invasion of privacy, a nuisance and a waste of his time and
phone battery, among other things.
"Frustrated and concerned with the escalation of Defendant's
invasive telemarketing practices, Plaintiff retained counsel to
file this action to compel Defendant to cease its unlawful
practices," the Spectrum class action states.
Hicks wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who are
not customers of Spectrum yet have received an unsolicited and
automated sales call on its behalf without consent within the last
four years.
Spectrum accused of failing to ignore request to stop making
automated sales calls
Third party telemarketers making robocalls on behalf of Spectrum
began contacting Hicks in or around March of last year, according
to the Spectrum class action, which argues he never had entered a
contract with the company or solicited its services.
Hicks claims he ultimately requested the third-party telemarketers
to stop contacting him. However, he alleges, the company continued
to "bombard" him with sales calls even after he changed phone
numbers.
Hicks is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief
along with monetary and treble damages for himself and all class
members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Spectrum last
year by a consumer arguing the company broke the law by allegedly
secretly recording inbound and outbound phone calls made to and by
its representatives. [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Stipulation on Class Cert. Continuance OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, FABIAN
HUERTA, AND KOYAANA REDSTAR, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. dba
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting joint
stipulation regarding continuance of class certification, pretrial,
and trial dates as follows:
(1) The current July 29, 2022 deadline for the court to hear
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification is
vacated;
(2) The Final Pretrial Conference date, trial date, and
associated trial document filing deadlines are vacated,
to be reset after the court rules on Plaintiffs'
anticipated Motion for Class Certification and
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and
(3) The Parties shall meet and confer about the timing and a
briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for
Class Certification within one week of Magistrate Judge
Stevenson's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and
will report the results to this court within fourteen
days of that ruling.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oHETV2 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Nov. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEVERO JOHN HERNANDEZ,
UMEET NAND, KRISTOPHER BARR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS GENERAL ENGINEERING,
INC., a California Corporation; CALEB CHRISTENSEN, and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-AB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte, Jr. entered an order approving the joint stipulation
to set class certification briefing schedule entered into by
Plaintiffs Severo John Hernandez, Umeet Nand, Kristopher Barr and
Defendants Christensen Brothers General Engineering, Inc. and Caleb
Christensen.
The Court sets the following Class Certification Briefing
Schedule.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file November 23, 2022
their motion:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file January 23, 2023
any opposition:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file February 13, 2023
any reply:
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs motion: March 3, 2023
Christensen Brothers is a construction company based in Apple
Valley, CA and specializes in Project Management, Masonry, and
Demolition.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cLkHi9 at no extra charge.[CC]
CLOVER NETWORK: Bobo Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TODD BOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLOVER NETWORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-22338-BB (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2022) brings this complaint
as a class action against the Defendant to secure redress for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant bombarded him with
telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone number ending
in 3660 over the past year, including on May 3, 2022. The purpose
of the Defendant's text messages was to promote its software
application and the use of a reward system for his purchases. At no
point in time did the Defendant obtain his express written consent
to receive such telemarketing text messages. In addition, his
cellular telephone number was registered with the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on October 2, 2011, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused him actual harm in the form of invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion. It also inconvenienced him and caused disruption to
his daily life. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity. The
Plaintiff also seeks actual and statutory damages, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary.
Clover Network, LLC is a point-of-sale platform retailer that
provides e-commerce services to businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Office: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Fax: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Allowed to Leave to File Notice in Palmer
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY PALMER, VARTAN
PIROUMIAN, EDWARD COX, and JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORPORATION, Christy Palmer et al v. Cognizant Technology
Solutions Corporation et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order granting the
defendants' application for leave to file notice of supplemental
authority in support of its opposition to class certification.
On July 14, 2022, the Defendants requested leave to file a notice
of supplemental authority.
Cognizant is an American multinational information technology
services and consulting company. It is headquartered in Teaneck,
New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PLoOcV at no extra charge.[CC]
COLUMBUS, OH: Landlords, Tenants Mull Class Action v. CMHA
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rantala, writing for WSYX, reports that Columbus-area
landlords and tenants are teaming up over nonpayment of rent and
housing lawyers are threatening to sue the Columbus Metropolitan
Housing Authority. The property manager of Wildberry Village in
west Columbus contacted ABC 6 On Your Side Problem Solvers to say
seven of her section-8 tenants are in jeopardy of eviction.
"We have tenants waiting about four to five months after they
passed the inspection, and we haven't received a contract,"
Property Manager Amber Corbett told Problem Solvers.
She claims CMHA is not fulfilling section-8 voucher requirements,
sending property managers payment contracts, or dispersing federal
rental assistance funds for many authority clients.
One of Corbett's tenants behind on rent due to CMHA is Debbie
Graber. Graber was approved for section-8 and had her housing
inspection completed for her voucher in April. Three months later,
CMHA still hasn't paid her rent.
Columbus housing lawyer considers class-action lawsuit against CMHA
for nonpayment of rent
Graber was diagnosed with lung cancer last November and is going
through radiation treatments and has packed up to 30 moving boxes
in her home not knowing when she'll be forced to leave.
"I'm getting notices that I'm past due," an emotional Graber told
to Problem Solvers. "I'm getting notices that it's $50 extra for
every month that hasn't been paid. I don't have that kind of
money."
At this point, Corbett is standing by her tenants saying she is the
only one fighting for them to keep their housing.
The management company's attorney Alex Castle told Problem Solvers
he's in talks with Legal Aid Society of Columbus and other property
management companies who are both experiencing or receiving
complaints of the nonpayments. He said it might be time to consider
a class-action lawsuit against CMHA.
Problem Solvers asked Castle if he's asking for audits, reviews of
the Authority or if H.U.D should get involved since this money is
based on federal tax dollars.
"If it does go to court, that is something we'd consider putting in
our complaint," he said.
While Corbett and her tenants are now calling on city leaders to
intervene by wearing t-shirts stating "Helpless & Homeless" at city
council on July 25, Problem Solvers asked CMHA twice for comment.
This is what the Authority's PR firm sent to Problem Solvers 30
minutes before airtime on July 25:
"CMHA acknowledges it is experiencing delays in its processing of
Housing Choice Voucher program payments and is taking steps to
address these issues. CMHA is contracting to hire more workers as
quickly as possible and reallocating CMHA staff to provide
additional necessary support. CMHA is committed to providing safe,
quality and affordable housing as well as preventing our tenants
from facing eviction. Landlords in Franklin County can be assured
they will be paid in full by CMHA for any rents retroactive to
their tenants' approved move-in date.
We recognize and regret the frustration this is causing. CMHA
continues to work toward resolving the situation as soon as
possible. In addition, CMHA will continue to keep landlords and
residents informed regarding all activities related to the Housing
Choice Voucher program. To get the most up-to-date information,
please check out the CMHA web portal at:
https://cmhanet.com/HCV/CGIHCVTransition"[GN]
DIGITAL RISK: Stipulation Continuing Class Cert Sched Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE AGUILAR and RONALD
BRYANT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
DIGITAL RISK MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; DIGITAL RISK, LLC; WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; MPHASIS LIMITED; MPHASIS CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00354-SK (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting the
following schedule:
-- Non-expert discovery closes: February 13, 2023
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to May 19, 2023
file Class Certification:
-- The Defendants' deadline to July 11, 2023
file Opposition to Class
Certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to July 25, 2023
file reply brief in support
of Class Certification:
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' August 21, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Initial expert disclosures October 13, 2023
due:
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures November 10, 2023
due:
-- Expert discovery completion December 1, 2023
date:
-- Last day for hearing March 4, 2024
dispositive motions:
-- Opening summary judgment due: January 5, 2024
-- Opposition and cross-motion due: January 19, 2024
-- Reply and opposition to February 2, 2024;
cross-motion due:
-- Reply in support of February 16, 2024
cross-motion due:
-- Pre-trial conference: April 12, 2024
-- Trial date: May 20, 2024
Digital Risk provides mortgage and financial services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BnfoQq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
ppatel@lelawfirm.com
The Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., are:
Glenn L. Briggs, Esq.
Theresa A. Kading, Esq.
KADING BRIGGS LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 450-8040
Facsimile: (949) 450-8033
E-mail: gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com
tkading@kadingbriggs.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants Digital Risk Mortgage Services,
LLC; Digital risk, LLC; Mphasis Limited; and Mphasis Corporation,
are:
David A. Garcia, Esq.
Nicole A. Naleway, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: david.garcia@ogletree.com
nicole.naleway@ogletree.com
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz Loses Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONIQUE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and YEKATERINA SKIDANENKO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-9856 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Plaintiff's request for a blanket
toll of the statute of limitations, without prejudice to the
potential opt-in plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a
case-by-case basis.
Plaintiffs Monique Katz and Yekaterina Skidanenko bring the action
against Equinox for failure to pay wages pursuant to federal,
state, and city law, among other claims.
On March 25, 2020, Skidanenko filed a putative class action suit
against the Defendant in the Eastern District of New York; the
lawsuit purported to be brought on behalf of all Tier 1 and Tier 2
Trainers throughout New York State. On April 29, 2020, the parties
stipulated to toll all claims until the earlier of (1) the date on
which Defendant responded to the Complaint or (2) June 24, 2020.
On June 24, 2020, the Defendant made a pre-motion application for
the lawsuit to be dismissed; that same day, Judge Kuntz set a
deadline of Aug. 7, 2020, for it to move to dismiss. On June 9,
2021, Judge Kuntz denied the Defendant's motion.
Thereafter, the parties began paper discovery; they did not conduct
depositions because the parties anticipated that the lawsuit could
be merged with Katz v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 20-CV-9856, an
ongoing lawsuit in the District. For the same reason, the Plaintiff
asserts that she "believed it was prudent not to push forward with
a motion for conditional certification."
On Jan. 7, 2022, Judge Kuntz granted the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss her case without prejudice in the Eastern District, and she
joined this action. On Jan. 21, 2022, the Defendant moved to
dismiss; the Court denied it on April 29, 2022, and granted Katz's
motion for conditional certification on behalf of all Tier 3, 3+,
and X trainers.
In the four months between joining the action and the Court's
decision to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss and to grant
Katz's motion for collective certification, the Plaintiff did not
move for conditional certification of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trainers.
She asserts that she "believed it would not be a prudent use of
attorneys' fees to seek permission to move for conditional
certification for tier 1 and 2 trainers" and the parties agreed
that she "would not move for conditional certification until the
decision was made on the then pending motion for conditional
certification of the tier 3, 3+, and X sub-collective."
On May 27, 2022, the parties agreed to conditional certification of
a collective of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trainers, but they were unable to
agree on its temporal scope. The Court ordered the parties to
submit letter briefs in support of their respective positions. The
Plaintiff argues that there should be a blanket grant of equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations so that anyone employed as a
Tier 1 or Tier 2 trainer on or after March 25, 2017, who wished to
join would have a timely claim, while the Defendant argues that any
blanket tolling should be limited to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trainers
employed by it on or after Feb. 5, 2019.
The Plaintiff focuses entirely on her own purported diligence,
arguing that equitable tolling is appropriate because "it took more
than 18 months from the date that she originally filed her action
in the Eastern District for the Court to deny the Defendant's
motion to dismiss" and that "it would not have been a prudent use
of attorneys' fees and the Court's resources to move for
conditional certification" once her suit was merged with Katz
because the Court was considering whether to grant conditional
certification for Tier 3, 3+, and X trainers. She further asserts
that some courts in the Southern District have allowed a notice
period of three years "from the date of the complaint with an
understanding that challenges to the timeliness of individual
plaintiffs' actions will be analyzed at a later date."
In response, the Defendant argues that: (1) Congress set the
statute of limitations period from the filing of a consent to join,
not the filing of a putative collective complaint, Def. Response at
2; (2) courts in the Southern District have typically measured the
notice period "from the date of the Court's order granting
plaintiffs' motion for condition certification, not from the filing
of the complaint"; (3) Plaintiff did not exercise reasonable
diligence on her own part or on the part of the putative
collective; (4) even if the Plaintiff exercised diligence, she has
made no showing of diligence by members of the proposed collective;
and (5) the previous motions and negotiations did not require the
Plaintiff to delay seeking collective certification, were not
extraordinary, and were not "reflective of events beyond her
control."
Judge Caproni finds the Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive. She
says, for blanket equitable tolling to be granted, a plaintiff must
offer specific details as to the potential opt-in plaintiffs who
wish to join the collective but who are or may become time-barred.
The Plaintiff has failed to provide any information as to potential
opt-in plaintiffs, how they exercised reasonable diligence, and how
they were prevented from exercising their rights.
The Plaintiff is also in error when she argues that the named
Plaintiff's diligence is the critical issue. But even if she were
correct, the Judge Caproni disagrees that she has exercised
reasonable diligence. There were several opportunities for her to
move for collective certification, and she chose not to do so,
primarily to save money.
Judge Caproni does not agree that the Plaintiff needed documents
from the Defendant in order to move for conditional certification,
but even if she did, she has not explained her lack of diligence
between June 9, 2021, when the Defendant's motion to dismiss was
denied, and Jan. 7, 2022, when her motion to dismiss without
prejudice was granted. She was not, at any point, precluded from
making a motion for conditional certification, and she should have
done so if she anticipated that there were potential opt-in
plaintiffs whose claims were in danger of being time-barred.
The Plaintiff also fails to allege that she encountered
extraordinary circumstances. Months-long delays resulting from a
court's consideration of motions have only been considered an
extraordinary circumstance when plaintiffs have, at minimum, been
diligently pursuing their claims. She waited to file her motion for
months after any delays that could be attributed to circumstances
outside of her control had already occurred; her claim was,
therefore, delayed by her own failure to pursue collective
certification diligently. Consequently, the delay in certifying a
collective does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance.
Thus, the Plaintiff's request for a blanket toll of the statute of
limitations from the date on which she filed her original complaint
is denied without prejudice to potential opt-in plaintiffs seeking
equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis. Based on the agreement
of the Defendant, the statute of limitation will be tolled so that
claims of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trainers employed by it on or after
Feb. 5, 2019, will be timely.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open motion at
Docket 86.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3p3wfany from Leagle.com.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OKs Settlement of RICO Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that a class settlement was
agreed to resolve the claims in the consolidated class action
lawsuit. Its final fairness hearing is set for November 2022.
The cases captioned "Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al.," "Buldas v.
FirstEnergy Corp. et al." and "Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc.
v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al." (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio,
all actions have been consolidated); on July 27, 2020, July 31,
2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported customers of FE
filed putative class action lawsuits against FE and FESC, as well
as certain current and former FE officers, alleging civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and
related state law claims.
FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April
11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a
pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to
these lawsuits and the Emmons lawsuit below. On June 22, 2022, the
court preliminarily approved the class settlement and scheduled the
final fairness hearing for November 9, 2022.
FirstEnergy is a fully regulated electric utility based in Ohio.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that a consolidated complaint
was filed against the company alleging violations of the Exchange
Act and the Securities Act.
On July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE
filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a
lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association, has been appointed by the court.
A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The
consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and
July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing
misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and
results of operations.
The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or
former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in
connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and
June 2020.
FirstEnergy is a fully regulated electric utility based in Ohio.
FIVE GUYS: Conditional Certification of Settlement Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; ENCORE FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00762-AWI-EPG
(E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a settlement class;
2. preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class action
settlement;
3. appointing the Plaintiff as the Class Representative, his
counsel as the Class Counsel, and Phoenix Settlement
Administrators as the Settlement Administrator;
4. approving the forms of Class Notice and proposed timeline
for administration; and (5) schedule a hearing on the
final approval of the Settlement for March 28, 2022 or as
soon thereafter as the Court is available.
The Defendants do not oppose the requested Class Representative
Service Award ($15,000.00) or the Class Counsel Award (up to
$300,000.00 in fees plus up to $20,000.00 in costs), and regardless
they are subject to Court approval at the Final Approval hearing.
The Parties agree that the LWDA will receive $75,000.00 (75%) as
its share of the $100,000.00 PAGA Payment that is allocated to PAGA
penalties, and that this amount is reasonable.
The Class to be conditionally certified is defined as:
"All persons who have been employed in California by the
Defendants as hourly-paid or “non-exempt” employees,
whether
directly or through an employment agency or a professional
services organization, at any time during the period from
August 22, 2013 through May 24, 2019."
This class action was filed by the Plaintiff on May 2, 2017 in
Kings County Superior Court. The complaint alleges violation of
California Civil Code; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages; failure to
indemnify; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to
timely pay all final wages; and unfair competition.
Five Guys Enterprises LLC is an American fast casual restaurant
chain focused on hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries, and
headquartered in Lorton, Virginia, part of Fairfax County.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BveMZ1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
FLORIDA DOC: Harvard Loses Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAC'QUANN (ADMIRE)
HARVARD, et al., v. RICKY DIXON, Secretary of Florida Department of
Corrections, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00212-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order denying motion for class
certification and denying as moot motions to strike.
The Plaintiffs challenge the Florida Department of Corrections' use
of solitary confinement, and they seek class certification. The
Secretary and the Department (collectively "FDC") have moved to
strike certain expert declarations related to the
class-certification motion. FDC has also moved to strike evidence
attached to Plaintiffs' reply -- or alternatively for leave to file
a surreply. This order denies all three motions.
The Plaintiffs have not provided any "glue" to hold these fact --
and context -- specific claims together. FDC moved to strike the
five expert declarations plaintiffs submitted to support class
certification. FDC argues that the declarations don't satisfy
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
But because I need not look to any expert testimony (from either
side) to deny class certification, I need not make a Daubert
determination here. FDC's motion to strike the expert declarations
is therefore denied as moot, Judge Winsor says.
The court will separately address the pending motion for partial
summary judgment in an order to issue shortly. The clerk will set a
telephonic status conference. The parties should be prepared to
discuss the procedures for resolving the Motion for Sanctions and
also scheduling matters, the Judge adds.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify one primary class and three
subclasses. The primary class would include all FDC inmates "who
are, or will be in the future, in Administrative Confinement,
Disciplinary Confinement, Close Management, Maximum Management or
any substantially equivalent restrictive housing unit used by FDC
where people are locked in their cells, alone or with a cellmate,
for 22 hours or more per day."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ScNNY4 at no extra charge.[CC]
FONDA EL CRIOLLITO: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Mendez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FONDA EL CRIOLLITO RESTAURANT LLC and
ALBERTO COSS CORTES, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-01297-PGB-EJK
(M.D. Fla., July 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from
approximately February 7, 2022 until June 26, 2022.
Fonda El Criollito Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its main place of business in Orlando, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Aug 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE SIMMONS, et al.,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 9:18-cv-81558-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order:
1. permitting Ford to file its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion
For Reconsideration of Class Certification Order by August
29, 2022; and
2. permitting Ford to file a Response of up to 25 double-
spaced pages. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the relief
sought in this motion.
On June 2, 2022, upon a joint motion, this Court provided
Plaintiffs with 45 days to file their Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Order Denying Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed
their Motion on July 15, 2022.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bpS49U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John M. Thomas, Esq.
Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
Eric C. Tew, Esq, Esq..
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
2723 South State Street, Suite 400
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 214-7613
E-mail: JThomas@dykema.com
KLenart@dykema.com
ETew@dykema.com
- and -
Christine L. Welstead, Esq.
Wendy F. Lumish, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 995-5600
Facsimile: (305) 995-6100
E-mail: wendy.lumish@bowmanandbrooke.com
Christine.welstead@bowmanandbrooke.com
FORD MOTOR: Super Duty Power Stroke Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that back in 2018,
a class-action lawsuit was filed claiming that 2011-2017 Ford Super
Duty F-250 and F-350 pickups equipped with Ford 6.7L V8 Power
Stroke diesel engines emitted more nitrogen oxide emissions than
gasoline engine-powered versions. In fact, the plaintiffs in the
case claimed that these trucks emitted so much nitrogen oxide that
they violate EPA standards. However, this lawsuit has now been
dismissed after a federal judge dropped the case, according to Car
Complaints.
Unfortunately, not much information is available regarding what led
to this decision, and court documents don't indicate that Ford
reached any sort of settlement with owners. In total, over 25
plaintiffs dropped their claims prior to the judge's decision,
which likely played a role in it.
The lawsuit claimed that Ford Super Duty pickups contain emissions
defeat devices that are hidden in engine control module software.
Ford allegedly placed a selective catalytic reduction in front of
the diesel particulate filters as well, rather than behind them,
and that the automaker conspired with its supplier, Bosch, to
conceal the illegal emissions defeat devices that helped the trucks
achieve advertised fuel economy and max towing ratings.
The suit also alleged that these defeat devices allowed Super Duty
pickups to pass emissions standards during lab testing, but not
during real-world driving situations. When pulling a trailer,
plaintiffs claimed that these trucks can allegedly exceed emissions
standards by more than 50 times, causing irreparable harm to the
environment in the process.
Diesel emissions "cheat" devices are nothing new, of course, as
Volkswagen faced a number of lawsuits and backlash over the tricks
it used to pass emissions tests starting back in 2015. VW was
eventually found guilty of intentionally programming its diesel
engines to activate emissions controls only during lab testing,
which allowed those vehicles to meet U.S. regulatory testing
standards. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Time to File Reply to Tucker Opposition Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tucker v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00430 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey
G. Fleissig entered an order granting the Defendant Ford Motor
Company's agreed motion for extension of time to file reply to
Plaintiff's opposition to Ford's motion to deny class certification
and strike class allegations.
The nature of suit states Contract - Contract Product Liability.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded
by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells
automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and
luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand.[CC]
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenny Wayne Rounds and
Randy Carl Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FourPoint Energy, LLC n/k/a Unbridled Resources, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-P (W.D. Okla.), Class Representatives Kenny
Wayne Rounds and Randy Carl Smith move the Court for final approval
of the:
1. Proposed class action Settlement;
2. Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and
3. Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation.
In the interest of brevity, Class Representatives contends that
they will not recite the entire background of this case again.
Rather, Class Representatives refer the Court to the Motion for
Preliminary Approval, the Joint Declaration of Class Counsel, the
pleadings on file, and any other matters of which the Court may
take judicial notice, all of which are incorporated as if fully set
out in this memorandum.
On May 17, 2022, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settle ment, approving the form of notice, and setting a date
of August 18, 2022, for the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court also
approved the Notices to the Settlement Classes, one form for
mailing, one for publication, and one long-form notice for posting
on the settlement website.
FourPoint Energy is a private energy exploration and production
company headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3beKdfm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: 0reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
David R. Gleason, Esq.
Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C.
211 N. Robinson
One Leadership Square, St. 1350
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235–3357
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
cknutter@moricoli.com
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Court Sets Class Cert Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ali v. Franklin Wireless
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00687 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Anthony J Battaglia entered an order setting briefing schedule
regarding motion to certify class Notice, motion for class
certification, and memorandum of points and authorities in Support
of Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification
-- Responses are due by Aug. 8, 2022;
-- Replies are due by Aug. 15, 2022;
-- Sur-replies will not be accepted; and
-- Motion Hearing is set for Oct. 13, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Franklin Wireless is a wireless broadband high-speed data
communications products provider.[CC]
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BERMAN, STEPHANIE
HERNANDEZ, and ERICA RUSSELL, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK LLC,
FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, FLUENT, INC., and LEAD SCIENCE, LLC, the
Defendants; FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC and FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF,
LLC, the Third Party Plaintiffs, and DOES 1 through 5, the Third
Party Defendants, Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC et al,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01060-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order modifying the schedule as to Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Date Date
-- Defendants' deadline to July 29, 2022 Aug. 12, 2022
file Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to Aug. 12, 2022 Aug. 26, 2022
file Reply in support
of Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' Sept. 6, 2022, Sept. 13, 2022
Renewed Motion for Class
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vrEVnE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC
Seattle, Washington 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jtmurray@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick
BRODERICK LAW, P.C
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
Chloe G. Chung, Esq.
Robert James Guite, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
cchung@sheppardmullin.com
Rguite@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Jonah Sampson VanZandt,
SEVERSON AND WERSON
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 398-3344
E-mail: jvanzandt@freedomdebtrelief.com
- and -
Joseph Thomas Johnson, Esq.
KLEIN MOYNIHAN TURCO LLP
50 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 246-0900
E-mail: jjohnson@kleinmoynihan.com
FREY BROTHERS: Lebaron Sues Over Auto Renewal of Free Subscriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TEAL LEBARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREY BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06262-LLS (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the Automatic Renewal Law, and State Consumer
Fraud Acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its laundry, personal, and home care products through free trials,
described in its fine print as "Sample to Subscription." Despite
the promises of a free trial, the Defendant enrolls customers in
its "Sample to Subscription Plan" without their knowledge. Had the
Plaintiff and proposed Class members known the truth about the
trials, they would not have signed up nor given their credit card
information and would have tried to cancel their subscriptions
before they were charged more than the initial dollar, says the
suit.
Frey Brothers, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products, with
its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and –
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
FUNDING METRICS: Court Upholds Validity of Class Action Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audra K. Hamilton, Esq., of Mitchell Williams disclosed that
arbitration agreements and class-action waivers have been important
tools for employers seeking to reduce expense and exposure in cases
brought by employees. These legal instruments have begun to be
limited, though. Recently, Congress amended the Federal Arbitration
Act to invalidate arbitration agreement provisions that required
"pre-dispute" arbitration of sexual harassment claims (in other
words, employers can no longer compel arbitration of a sexual
harassment claim based upon an arbitration agreement signed at the
commencement of employment). However, as some good news for
Arkansas employers, an April Arkansas Supreme Court opinion
reinforced the validity of class-action waivers under Arkansas
contract law.
In just March and April of 2022, employees in Arkansas filed at
least 15 class-action lawsuits against employers for wage and hour
violations. This averages to approximately two class actions filed
in Arkansas per week in in recent months.
There are a variety of methods to stay in compliance with the many
complicated provisions of the FLSA, including review of handbooks
and policies by legal counsel, audits on payroll practices, and
internal complaint processes that might alert an employer to a
potential violation. However, because violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") do not require any proof of intent (though
there can be extra penalties for a "willful" violation), even
employers who believe that they are following FLSA requirements may
be caught in the equivalent of a very expensive "foot fault,"
particularly if a violation is brought as a class action.
Among the most powerful tools employers have as protection against
class actions are clauses in employment agreements waiving the
right to file a class action, which often accompany a requirement
to arbitrate any employment dispute under the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA"). Recently, the Arkansas Supreme Court re-affirmed the
validity of class-action-waiver clauses even without an agreement
to arbitrate, in Funding Metrics, LLC v. Letha's Pies, LLC, 2022
Ark. 73.
Class-Action Waiver Upheld
In Funding Metrics, the plaintiff, Letha's Pies, filed a class
action against Funding Metrics alleging violations of Arkansas
securities law. Funding Metrics opposed the class certification,
pointing to the class-action waiver in its merchant agreement with
Letha's pies. The lower court, however, disagreed, noting that
there was no arbitration provision in the agreement. The court
certified the class. Funding Metrics requested an interlocutory
appeal (an appeal before the case is over) to the Arkansas Supreme
Court.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and found that the class-action
waiver was enforceable. The court noted that the language of the
class-action waiver was broad, "waiving any right to assert any
claims against the other party as a representative action . . . ."
Important for employers, for the reasons below, the court found the
absence of an arbitration provision did not affect whether the
class-action waiver could be upheld under Arkansas law.
Rather, the class-action waiver should be analyzed pursuant to the
principles of Arkansas contract law. The essential elements of a
contract are: (1) competent parties, (2) subject matter, (3)
consideration, (4) mutual agreement, and (5) mutual obligation. The
court noted that all elements were present in the agreement between
the parties.
Important also for employers, the court found sufficient "mutuality
of obligation" (element 5 above), even though the class action
waiver is only applicable to the plaintiff (as defendants in these
types of cases rarely have grounds to bring a case on behalf of a
class). Instead, the court found that mutuality of obligation does
not require a "precisely even exchange of identical rights and
obligations," but that the duties "undertaken by each party be
regarded . . . as sufficient consideration for the other's
promise."
Relevance to Arkansas Employers
This case was not one between employer and employees. Nonetheless,
the principles discussed by the Arkansas Supreme Court are helpful
to employers. First, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a
class-action waiver even in the absence of an arbitration
provision. That is important in the current political and lawmaking
landscape. As noted above, earlier this year, in the wake of the
#MeToo movement, Congress passed the "Ending Forced Arbitration of
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021," which precludes
employers from enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements in
sexual harassment or sexual assault claims. There are also states
that have enacted similar bans on arbitration of employment
disputes. The Funding Metrics decision, however, allows employers
to enforce a class-action waiver in an employment agreement even in
the absence of an arbitration provision.
In addition, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the class-action
waiver in this case as having the required element of "mutuality of
obligation" even though, effectively, the waiver was only
enforceable against one side of the agreement. That has particular
relevance to employers, as a class-action waiver only can be
enforced against an employee (employers are not bringing cases
against classes of employees). The important fact is whether the
agreement as a whole requires sufficient duties from both parties
as consideration for the agreement.
Key Takeaways
The enforceability of arbitration clauses in employment agreements
is evolving from a legislative and policy-making standpoint. In
February of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to
advance a bill called the "Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act"
or "FAIR Act," which, if enacted, would void all pre-dispute
mandatory arbitration agreements in employment (and some other
types of) disputes. The Senate has not followed suit. However, some
states (not including Arkansas) have also enacted similar
limitations on employment arbitration agreements.
In Arkansas, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed in
Funding Metrics and in two opinions from 2020, Jorja Trading, Inc.
v. Willis and BHC Pinnacle Pointe Hospital v. Nelson, that both
arbitration clauses (except in sexual harassment cases) and
class-action waivers remain viable legal methods to reduce the risk
of costly lawsuits in Arkansas. As long as employment agreements
meet all of the elements required in Arkansas contract law, these
types of clauses remain enforceable in Arkansas at this time.
Audra Hamilton is an attorney with Mitchell Williams in Little
Rock. You can reach her at ahamilton@mwlaw.com. [GN]
G & S PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Schilling Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JALYN SCHILLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G & S PIZZA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00410 (W.D. Wis., July 26, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful employment policies, practices, and
procedures that willfully and intentionally violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Delivery Driver from approximately March 2022 through December
2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant paid him and other
similarly situated Delivery Drivers less than minimum wage per
hours for all hours they worked outside of the restaurant making
deliveries. Accordingly, they receive tips from the Defendant's
customers. However, the Defendant allegedly takes advantage of the
"tip credit" provision of the FLSA. In addition, the Defendant did
not reimburse its Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses.
Although the Defendant required them to incur and/or pay
job-related expenses while performing duties for the primary
benefit of the Defendant, the Defendant reimburse them at a flat
rate per delivery at $1.15 per delivery, that is below the IRS
standard business mileage rate and/or less than a reasonable
approximation of their automobile expenses. Moreover, despite
occasionally working over 40 hours in a week, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Delivery Drivers were not paid overtime
premiums by the Defendant, asserts the Plaintiff.
G & S Pizza, Inc. owns and operates Domino's pizza franchises in
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Defines Class Period in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Grupo Televisa Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-01979-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Louis L. Stanton entered an order that the Class Period is defined
as all investors who had purchased or acquired Televisa ADRs from
April 11, 2013 to November 17, 2017, inclusive.
On June 29, 2020, the Court entered an Order certifying the class
in this putative securities class action litigation. Left
unresolved in that Order was the definition of the class period.
The Plaintiff asserts that defendants paid bribes to secure media
rights to the 2018, 2022, 2026, 2030 FIFA World Cup and made
various misstatements to conceal the alleged scheme and exploit
undisclosed weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting. They seek relief from this alleged fraud on
behalf of all investors who had "purchased or acquired Televisa
ADRs from April 11, 2013 to January 25, 2018, inclusive."
In this Motion,the Defendants argue that the proposed class
definition is impermissibly broad because it extends past the date
of the corrective disclosure, and it begins before the misstatement
connected to that corrective disclosure was made. They seek to
limit the eligible class to encompass individuals and entities that
purchased or acquired Televisa ADRs from April 28, 2017 through and
including November 17, 2017 and still held such ADRs through that
latter date.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zJJDQr at no extra charge.[CC]
GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Sets Class Period in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issues an Order defining the class period of
the class certified in the case, In RE GRUPO TELEVISA SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 18 Civ. 1979 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.).
On June 29, 2020, the Court entered an Order certifying the class
in this putative securities class action litigation. Left
unresolved in that Order was the definition of the class period.
Judge Stanton now settles that open question. He rules that the
Class Period is from April 11, 2013 to Nov. 17, 2017, inclusive.
The Plaintiff asserts the Defendants paid bribes to secure media
rights to the 2018, 2022, 2026, 2030 FIFA World Cup and made
various misstatements to conceal the alleged scheme and exploit
undisclosed weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting. They seek relief from this alleged fraud on
behalf of all investors who had "purchased or acquired Televisa
ADRs from April 11, 2013 to Jan. 25, 2018, inclusive"
The Defendants argue the proposed class definition is impermissibly
broad because it extends past the date of the corrective
disclosure, and it begins before the misstatement connected to that
corrective disclosure was made. They seek to limit the eligible
class to encompass individuals and entities that purchased or
acquired Televisa ADRs from April 28, 2017 through and including
Nov. 17, 2017, and still held the ADRs through that latter date.
Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, an "order that certifies a class action must define the
class." In securities class actions, "a class definition ordinarily
should have temporal limitations." The boundaries of that
limitation run from when the first misrepresentation was made
allegedly distorting the market price to when the truth was
revealed curing the price of any fraud-induced inflation. If
questions of fact remain as to whether the disclosure completely
cured the market, a broader class period should be certified.
According to Judge Stanton, the parties' dispute boils down, in
essence, to when sufficient corrective information entered the
market and how to interpret the Court's prior determinations on
that question.
The Defendants argue that the closing date of the class period
should be Nov. 17, 2017, the date Alejandro Burzaco concluded
testifying in an EDNY criminal prosecution of FIFA individuals
accused of accepting bribes in exchange for grants of broadcasting
rights to the World Cup. They contend that Burzaco's testimony was
the "single event" sufficient to notify Televisa investors of the
company's participation in the purported bribery scheme.
The Plaintiff disagrees, positing that a broader time period should
be certified because open questions of fact exist as to whether
Burzaco's testimony completely cured the market. The Plaintiff
argues there is an open question of fact as to whether Televisa's
Form 6-K filed on Jan. 26, 2018 revealing the material weaknesses
in the company's internal controls over financial reporting amounts
to a corrective disclosure.
As the Court previously stated, of the corrective disclosures
alleged in the complaint, Burzaco's testimony was the "single
event" which conveyed information to the Televisa investors
severing the link between when alleged misrepresentations and the
stock price. Despite attempts to stretch the Court's order, there
is no open question of fact as to whether the Jan. 26, 2018 Form
6-K was a corrective disclosure. Investors "had known since
November that bribes, big ones, were paid from Burzaco's
testimony." Thus, the class period ends on Nov. 17, 2017, the Court
says.
The Defendants assert that the class period begins April 28, 2017,
when Televisa announced for the first time it had secured the
broadcast rights to the 2026 and 2030 World Cups. They argue that
public statements over the broadcast rights to the 2018 and 2022
World Cups are not actionable because Burzaco's trial testimony was
bereft of anything associating Televisa with a bribery scheme
related to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
Judge Stanton holds that the Defendants' argument that Burzaco's
trial testimony does not relate to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups is
a question of fact. He rules that the class period begins on April
11, 2013, the date on which Televisa filed its Form 20-F annual
report touting its internal controls and Code of Ethics, which the
Court has already held contains actionable material
misrepresentations.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52e5arad from Leagle.com.
HITACHI LTD: ODD Price-Fixing Class Action Settled for $29.7-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Murphy, writing for The Star, reports that a $29.7 million
lawsuit was settled in Canada over the alleged price-fixing of
certain optical disc drive (ODD) electronics.
The lawsuit alleged that within a six-year span starting in 2004,
ODD products, including computers, gaming consoles and DVD players,
were sold for prices higher than their value, disadvantaging
consumers and businesses.
Eligible Canadians do not require a proof of purchase for the
claim. Consumers wishing to claim more than the minimum payout will
need to provide a receipt, and compensation will be dependent on
the number and size of claims filed, as well as the type of
products involved in the claim.
A representative for Siskinds Law Firm, based in London, Ont., said
in a statement to the Star that litigation on this issue did not
reach a point where a final estimate could be made over exactly how
much companies overcharged for ODD products.
Who is eligible to file a claim?
Both individuals and businesses are eligible to file a claim.
Businesses that purchased ODD devices wholesale may be required to
provide additional documentation including invoices and packing
slips, according to the class action's published distribution
protocol.
The alleged price fixing involves optical disc drives, storage
devices that write or read data using a physical disc, such as a
CD, DVD, or Blu-Ray.
Optical disc drives can be found in electronics like CD players,
DVD and Blu-Ray players, desktop computers, laptops and video game
consoles.
Canadians who purchased ODD electronics between Jan. 1, 2004 and
Jan. 1, 2010 are eligible to file a claim.
While the series of lawsuits resulting in the class action suit
were filed in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, "all persons in
Canada" who may have purchased the affected products are eligible
to file a claim.
What companies are implicated in the lawsuit?
Siskinds Law Firm released details of the settlement, including the
defendants implicated in the lawsuit. Companies included in the
class action settlement are Hitachi, LG, Sony, Philips, Toshiba,
Samsung, Panasonic, TEAC, NEC, Quanta Storage, Pioneer and BenQ.
How much am I eligible to claim?
Eligible Canadians can claim a minimum of $20.
Proof of purchase is not required to file a claim for the minimum
$20 payout.
Those who may have overpaid on ODD electronics between the
specified dates are encouraged to file a claim online.
Those wishing to claim more than the minimum $20 -- businesses and
institutions who may have been more heavily affected by overpriced
electronics -- will need to provide documentation.
A representative for Siskinds Law Firm said that members of the
representative class will not be able to pursue litigation for this
issue outside of the settlement. Those wishing to pursue outside
litigation would have needed to opt out of the settlement already,
and according to the representative, there were no opt-outs.
When is the deadline to file a claim?
Those looking to file a claim can do so online until Nov. 14, 2022.
Claimants will need to provide information including their name,
contact details, how many ODD products were purchased if the claim
is undocumented, and proof of purchase if the person is looking to
claim more than the minimum $20. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Georgia Court Dismisses Carson TCPA Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA CARSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action File No. 1:21-CV-4715-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an Opinion and
Order:
a. denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and
b. granting in part and denying in part its Motion to Compel
Arbitration or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss.
The lawsuit is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case arises from the Home Depot's alleged
failure to implement procedures for honoring do-not-call requests
by consumers. According to the Amended Complaint, Home Depot has
"bombarded" Carson's cellphone with marketing text messages even
after repeated requests to stop. All of the messages were sent to
her as part of the "Pro Referral" program.
ProReferral.com is a free online platform that connects people
working on home improvement projects with independent professionals
in their area. The website is owned and operated by non-party Red
Beacon, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Home Depot. On
July 8, 2021, the Plaintiff submitted three requests on Pro
Referral to find help repairing a door jamb, and she twice checked
a box stating: "Get Text updates about my service request." The
same day, Pro Referral sent her a text message matching her project
with a construction company, to which she responded "Stop" to
unsubscribe from future messages.
But the text messages did not stop there. Over the next
approximately three weeks, the Plaintiff received four more
messages from the same phone number, each one identifying
"PROREFERRAL" as the sender and including a link to Pro Referral's
website. The first three communications asked her to write reviews
or take surveys about her experience with Pro Referral; the fourth
one was an inquiry from the construction company that had been
matched with her project weeks earlier. Again, the Plaintiff
replied "Stop" (sometimes multiple times) to all but one of the
messages. According to the Amended Complaint, this series of
communications, including the survey requests, were "part of an
overall marketing, or profit-seeking, campaign conducted by Home
Depot to promote its Pro Referral services."
To enroll her project in Pro Referral, the Plaintiff first had to
accept Pro Referral's Terms of Service by clicking the "Submit My
Request" button. The Terms of Service were available to view
through a hyperlink posted above the button. On the first page of
the Terms of Service, the Plaintiff was informed that any claims
against Pro Referral could be subject to arbitration on a strictly
individual basis. As used in the Terms of Service, the name "Pro
Referral" refers to Red Beacon, not Home Depot or any other entity.
)
The Plaintiff filed her original Complaint in Georgia state court,
and Home Depot timely removed the action to the Court and filed the
first Motion to Dismiss. That Motion was mooted when she amended
her pleading to add more details about the Pro Referral
communications. The Amended Complaint asserts one count against
Home Depot -- on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed nationwide
class -- for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).
Allegedly, Home Depot has failed to (1) implement a written policy
for maintaining a do-not-call list; (2) train its personnel on the
existence and use of the do-not-call-list; (3) maintain a
do-not-call list; and (4) honor do-not-call requests from
consumers. The sole basis for this allegation is Home Depot's
failure to honor the the Plaintiff's (and the class members')
requests not to receive telephone solicitations.
Home Depot now moves to submit the case to arbitration as provided
in Pro Referral's Terms of Service or, in the alternative, to
dismiss it altogether for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Thrash first considers whether the action should be submitted
to arbitration under Pro Referral's Terms of Service and then, if
necessary, whether the Amended Complaint states a plausible claim
for relief under the TCPA.
The Plaintiff raises two arguments in an attempt to save her TCPA
claim from arbitration. First, she argues that Home Depot has no
right to compel arbitration because she only agreed to arbitrate
with non-party Red Beacon, not Home Depot. Second, she argues that
her cause of action does not arise from her use of the Pro Referral
website and thus falls outside the scope of the arbitration
clause.
Because Judge Thrash agrees that Home Depot cannot enforce the
Terms of Service, there is no need to address the Plaintiff's
second argument in opposition to arbitration. He opines that the
Plaintiff cannot avoid the arbitration clause by tactically
omitting the signatory, Red Beacon, from the case and then
summarily attributing its acts and omissions to a nonsignatory
defendant, Home Depot. This kind of pleading gamesmanship is not
tolerated within the Eleventh Circuit. The Plaintiff also cites no
authority to support her assertion that a nonsignatory's right to
compel arbitration hinges on whether a signatory is named as a
co-defendant.
Moreover, Judge Thrash holds that the Plaintiff requires no
assistance from Pro Referral's Terms of Service to recover on her
TCPA claim against Home Depot. The Amended Complaint does not
reference the Terms of Service, much less allege a breach of any
obligations or request any remedies available under the contract.
Instead, her cause of action relies on the TCPA's independent
restrictions on telemarketing activities and its private right of
action to seek an injunction and damages for regulatory violations.
Because she is not attempting to hold Home Depot to any part of the
Terms of Service, her claim is not "intimately founded in" or
"intertwined with" the contract.
Put differently, she "would have an independent right to recover
against Home Depot even if the contract containing the arbitration
clause were void." For that reason, Judge Thrash concludes that
Home Depot cannot enforce the Terms of Service's arbitration clause
through equitable estoppel.
At the same time, the Plaintiff's own allegations doom her TCPA
claim under Rule 12(b)(6). As Judge Thrash explained,, the Amended
Complaint does not plausibly allege that Home Depot sent any text
messages to the Plaintiff. Instead, the communications expressly
came from Pro Referral, which is owned and operated by Home Depot's
subsidiary Red Beacon. Direct liability thus does not attach to
Home Depot under the TCPA. And neither the Amended Complaint nor
the Plaintiff's brief put forth an alternate theory of liability as
to Home Depot. Consequently, the sole count in the Amended
Complaint does not state a viable claim for relief and should be
dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Thrash dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice, and
directs the Clerk of Court to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybkujmp5 from Leagle.com.
HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Restricts Access to Opposition Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. e 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an
order granting the motion to restrict access to the Defendants and
C. David Venture Management, LLC and VentureStreet, LLC's
respective oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the Opposition
Filings UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1. The Court further ordered
that the Clerk of Court shall file the redacted versions of the
Defendants' and C. David Venture Management, LLC and VentureStreet,
LLC's respective Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, attached to the Motion to Restrict as Exhibits A and
B, for public access.
Airquip and Pipetool Compressed air systems, parts, and
accessories.
HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace formerly known as
ServiceMagic. It connects homeowners with local service
professionals to carry out home improvement, maintenance and
remodeling projects.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vmS55d at no extra charge.[CC]
HYATT CORPORATION: Court Amends Pretrial Schedule in Eli Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELI BICKERTON v. HYATT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00397-RSL-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered an orderv amending pretrial
schedule as follows:
Event Date
-- Phase One Class Certification January 27, 2023
Written Discovery and
Depositions:
-- Completed Motion for Class February 24, 2023
Certification Due:
-- Opposition to Class April 28, 2023
Certification Motion Due:
-- Reply In Support of Class May 26, 2023
Certification Motion Due:
Hyatt Hotels is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages
and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation
properties.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PM7a8X at no extra charge.[CC]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Car Owners May Be Eligible for Engine Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Matarese, writing for WCPO, reports that millions of people
who drive a Hyundai or Kia may be eligible for a free replacement
engine under a recent class action settlement. The trouble is that
many car owners don't know it and are paying big repair bills or
even scrapping their cars when diagnosed with a major engine repair
bill.
Rolanda Underwood was driving her 2016 Hyundai Sonata when
something went wrong.
"I was driving on the highway to pick up my paycheck," she said
when the car sputtered.
"I was going 60, and all of a sudden, it was 50," she said.
The car lost power rapidly, she said, and within minutes, she was
stuck on the side of the road. A tow truck took her to a nearby
Hyundai dealer, who she says diagnosed a blown engine.
Ira and Jima Gansler were driving home when their 2015 Kia Sportage
suddenly quit.
"We had no power steering and no brakes. It was pretty scary,"
Gansler said.
Their Kia dealer also diagnosed a blown engine.
Class action settlement could mean help for owners
Breakdowns like this have become more common, with thousands of
Hyundai and Kia owners in recent years reporting major engine
problems that can cost thousands of dollars to fix.
The good news for owners who already filed a complaint is that
Hyundai and Kia settled a class action case in 2021, providing a
warranty extension that could mean a free replacement.
Kevin Williams of the auto site "The Drive.Com" said several
million vehicles will likely qualify for an engine replacement but
said owners often end up paying for repairs.
"There are a lot of people, especially people who are second and
third owners of vehicles with those engines," he said, "who just
don't know that they are part of that warranty extension."
Vehicles that may be covered by the settlement include many of the
following 2011 to 2019 models with a "Theta" engine:
Hyundai Sonata
Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Optima
Kia Sportage
Kia Sorento
Not all models are included, however, and there are exclusions,
especially if you did not save maintenance records or did not have
a 2019 computer software recall performed.
So what should you do if you are starting to have engine issues?
The Drive's Williams said before you go to a neighborhood repair
shop, which cannot do warranty repairs, "you should call your local
Hyundai or Kia service department with your vehicle's VIN. That
would give you a definite answer" as to whether you may qualify for
the warranty extension.
Unfortunately, the Gansler's claim was denied because they say
their older son, a mechanic, had done several driveway oil
changes.
A Kia spokesperson told us the couple "produced only 5 of 13 oil
change receipts" and therefore did not have the required paperwork
to qualify for a free repair. He also said there was no evidence
their car had been brought in for that 2019 recall, which is
required for the warranty extension.
Rolanda Underwood was luckier. Her Sonata got a free engine
replacement, though her car still has issues.
"Now the check engine light came on," she said. We are contacting
her dealer to see if they can assist with that.
The Kia spokesman said customers can learn more about whether their
car might qualify at the official Kia Engine Settlement webpage.
Hyundai owners can learn more about whether they may qualify at the
Hyundai Warranty Extension webpage.
While the settlement is not perfect, if you own a 2011 to 2019 Kia
or Hyundai with engine problems, there is a chance you may qualify
for a free engine replacement, so you don't waste your money. [GN]
INNOVATION MARKETING: Court Tosses Bid to Set Aside Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW ORSO, in his
capacity as court-appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC
d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., as
successor in Interest to the Final Judgments entered against Net
Winners, v. TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his
capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust; TRUDY GILMOND;
TRUDY GILMOND, LLC; JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA GATES;
DAVID SORRELLS; INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS; SHARA
ANDREWS; GLOBAL INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER; KAREN
SILVER; MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER; MARY
KETTNER; P.A.W.S. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and a
Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM, Case No.
3:14-cv-00091-GCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Graham C. Mullen
entered an order denying Net Winner DOuglas Ray Sullivan's motion
to set aside judgment.
Mr. Sullivan seeks to have the Final Judgment issued against him
five years ago set aside, claiming that he never received notice
and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction After the Net Winner
Class, in this case, was certified, this Court entered a Process
Order designed to:
(1) provide Net Winners with notice that they were members of
the Net Winner class; and
(2) to provide Net Winners with the opportunity to contest
the amount of their winnings.
The Process Order required the Receiver to provide notice to all
persons that he believed were part of the Net Winner Class with
notice "by email to the email address provided by the net winner in
connection with any account" with ZeekRewards "as well as any other
email address that has been provided by the net winner."
"In the event that the notice could not be delivered to any email
address provided by the Net Winner," the Receiver was required to
"send a letter to the last known physical address of the Net Winner
informing the Net Winner of the proceedings and the availability of
the amount of his or her Net Winnings." The Receiver was also
required to "post a link on the Receivership website" that allowed
Net Winners to access all this information. All Net Winners were
provided with an opportunity to contest their membership in the Net
Winner class as well as the Receiver's calculation of their Net
Winnings.
The Fourth Circuit approved of the Process Order, concluding that
it "provided a process by which damages could be individually
challenged and litigated." Bell v. Brockett, 922 F.3d 502, 514, n.
8 (4th Cir. 2019).
Innovative Marketing is a social media marketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cRoQBs at no extra charge.[CC]
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Leave to File Clarification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR v.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and
THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court that he be permitted to file the clarification of
the following two items of support for his motion to certify a
class:
1. The first item covered by this motion (being the
Plaintiff's Certification Appendix) was timely filed and
is in the record. By this section of this motion the
Plaintiff intends to clarify what may be confusing about
the Original Appendix and Reply Appendix.
2. The second object of this motion are the word processing
codes that appear in the Reply. In the Reply, citations
inadvertently display the Word processing TOA reference
code.
Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. It
operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by
number of daily average revenue trades.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PLFa4Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary N. Reger, Esq.
5152 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 7874
Telephone: (512) 861-0441
E-mail: gnr@obt.com
- and -
L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC
P.O. Box 3829
Beaumont, TX 77704
Telephone: (409) 832-1891
E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com
- and -
William M. Bloss, Esq.
Christopher M. Mattei
KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
350 Fairfield Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Telephone: (203) 336-4421
Facsimile: (203) 368-3244
E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com
cmattei@koskoff.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, v.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and
THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that he be permitted to
file the following supplemental Plaintiff Exhibit under seal:
-- The object of this motion concerns supplementing the
production of a source code document that is referenced in
Plaintiff's Reply, but not yet filed.
Endnote "iii" to the Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification references three Source Code protected pages
that, as far as we can tell, have not been provided to the
Court in any form, sealed or otherwise. These pages are
Bates stamped SC_00l5 1197—99 and designated as "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE INFORMATION-ATTORNEY'S EYES
ONLY." These three pages are ATTACHED to this motion as
Exhibit 42.
These three pages are referenced in Plaintiff's motion to
certify but are not attached to the motion to certify.
They should be provided to the Court as part of the record
but, because they are designated Source Code information,
only Defendants can supply a physical copy to the Court.
In response to this motion Defendants have provided
Plaintiff with a copy to file with this motion, as Exhibit
42.
Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. It
operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by
number of daily average revenue trades.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ORKAdr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary N. Reger, Esq.
5152 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 7874
Telephone: (512) 861-0441
E-mail: gnr@obt.com
- and -
L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC
P.O. Box 3829
Beaumont, TX 77704
Telephone: (409) 832-1891
E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com
- and -
William M. Bloss, Esq.
Christopher M. Mattei
KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
350 Fairfield Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Telephone: (203) 336-4421
Facsimile: (203) 368-3244
E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com
cmattei@koskoff.com
IVERIC BIO: Hearing on Settlement Approval Set for September
------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that a hearing is scheduled
for September 2022 to determine whether the settlement of the class
action lawsuit should be granted final approval.
On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned "Frank Micholle v. IVERIC bio,
Inc., et al.," No. 1:17-cv-00210. On March 9, 2017, a related
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and the
same group of its current and former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned "Wasson v. IVERIC bio, Inc., et al.," No. 1:17-cv-01758.
These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (CAC).
The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between March 2, 2015 and
December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the results of the company's Phase 2b trial and the
prospects of the company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.
The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs. The company and individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court
issued an order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in
the CAC. On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual
defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the
lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On August
11, 2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to lead
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On April 23, 2021,
the court issued an order staying the action until July 1, 2021, 10
days after a mediation scheduled for June 21, 2021. On July 1,
2021, following the June 21, 2021 mediation, the parties notified
the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle
the class action.
On September 8, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and submitted the agreement to the court for approval. Under the
terms of the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay $29
million, which includes the attorneys' fees and costs and expenses
for the plaintiffs' counsel.
On March 17, 2022, the court provided a preliminary approval of the
settlement. In April 2022, the company's insurance carriers paid
the full amount of the settlement directly to the plaintiffs'
escrow account. A hearing to determine whether the settlement
should be granted final approval is scheduled for September 8,
2022.
IVERIC bio, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel treatments for retinal diseases
based in New Jersey.
KOLD TRANS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Date Set for Jan 18, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON v. KOLD
TRANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order continuing
class certification briefing schedule and the motion hearing date.
-- The class certification motion hearing deadline is thus
scheduled to January 18, 2023;
-- The Plaintiff’s Opposition Papers due March 27, 2023;
-- The Defendants' Reply Papers due May 1, 2023; and
-- The hearing on class 6 certification will be held on May
18, 2023, at 10:00am.
Kold Trans is a provider of truckload and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cTB7p1 at no extra charge.[CC]
LIFECORE FITNESS: Valiente TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LIFECORE FITNESS, INC. d/b/a
ASSAULT FITNESS, Case No. 2022-009416-CA-01, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on July 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-22294-RNS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to the
telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff.
Lifecore Fitness, Inc., doing business as Assault Fitness, is an
owner and operator of a fitness center in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elaine M. Rice, Esq.
Bradley F. Kinni, Esq.
JOHNSON, CASSIDY, NEWLON & DECORT, P.A.
2802 N. Howard Avenue
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 291-3300
Facsimile: (813) 324-4629
E-mail: erice@jclaw.com
bkinni@jclaw.com
LOUISIANA DOC: Humphrey, et al., Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JAMES
LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certify a class defined as:
"all persons who have been remanded to the custody of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) since
April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the
time of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or
parole revocation), but who were released by the DOC more
than 48 hours past the time that they were remanded to the
DOC's custody;"
2. appointing them as representatives of the class;
3. appointing their counsel as class counsel; and
4. granting all other relief that is just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zbSRDe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
Nishi Kumar, Esq.
The Promise of Justice Initiative
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org
- and -
William Most, Esq.
Caroline Gabriel, Esq.
MOST & ASSOCIATES
201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114 #101
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
- and -
Stephen Weil, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
E-mail: weil@loevy.com
MAMACITA'S INC: Melara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Servers
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA MELARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAMACITA'S, INC. and MARIA NARVAEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-61367 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from
approximately 2017 through May of 2021.
Mamacita's, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator, with its main
place of business in Broward County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Flynn, et al., Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD R. FLYNN, GENE
DAISEY, DOUGLAS J. ABBOTT, PERCY CHAPMAN, and JANENE CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY a/k/a M&T BANK, Case No.
2:17-cv-04806-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed settlement
in this action, as memorialized in the parties' Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release;
2. certifying a settlement Class;
3. conditionally appointing them as class representatives of
the Class;
4. appointing Richard Shenkan and Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
and James Haggerty and Haggerty, Goldsmith, Schleifer and
Kupersmith, P.C. as class counsel;
5. appointing Class-Settlement.com as the third-party
administrator of the Settlement;
6. approving the form and method of the class notice attached
to the Settlement Agreement and Release to inform the
members of the Class of the Settlement and their rights in
connection therewith;
7. setting the date for a hearing as to final approval of the
Settlement; and
8. setting interim deadlines for the members of the Class to
object to or request exclusion from the Class. Plaintiffs
incorporate the Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval,
Certification of the Settlement Class, and Approval of
Class Settlement Notice contemporaneously filed.
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company provides banking services.
The Bank offers savings, cards, loans, and online banking.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oFJIhz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC.
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (800) 601-0808
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
MARATHON CHEESE: Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARRIE ACKLEY v. MARATHON
CHEESE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-00232-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: September 2, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' motion for January 6, 2023
conditional certification of
the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) class:
-- Motions & Briefs To Certify/ May 19, 2023
Decertify Classes:
-- Deadline for filing November 3, 2023
dispositive motions:
-- Settlement Letters: March 1, 2024
-- Discovery Cutoff: March 1, 2024
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures March 15, 2024
and all motions in limine:
Objections: April 5, 2024
-- First Final Pretrial April 24, 2024
Conference:
-- Second Final Pretrial May 1, 2024
Conference:
-- Trial: May 6, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zGU6fm at no extra charge.[CC]
MARCUS POLLARD: Fitzgerald Files Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA R. FITZGERALD, an
individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
MARCUS POLLARD, an individual; Lieutenant C. MOORE, an individual;
Sergeant H. CRUZ, an individual; Officer JACKSON, an individual;
Officer LITTLE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"all visitors to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
("RJD") over the period of May 5, 4 2018, through present,
who were subjected to unclothed body searches as a condition
to visiting an inmate and whose Notice of Request for Search
(Form CDCR 888) forms state no specific objective facts or
rational inferences related to establishing individualized
reasonable suspicion to believe that the person targeted for
the search had an intention of smuggling contraband into
RJD."
The Plaintiff seeks certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) as to
liability only and pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) to protect the CLASS
on future visits to RJD.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants intentionally side-stepped
the Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized reasonable
suspicion to strip-search RJD visitors through the following
practices.
First, RJD staff, acting in their official capacity, added a
boilerplate statement to the state-approved CDCR 888. The
Defendants' visiting lieutenant and visiting sergeant, acting in
their official capacities, then pre-signed numerous blank, and
undated, Notices and made them available to the visiting
corrections officers in the Main and Echo visitor-processing
centers. When the number of pre-signed Notice forms was inadequate,
visiting corrections officers made Xerox copies of the pre-signed
Notice forms.
On May 4, 2019, the Plaintiff visited RJD and inmate Christopher
Roberts for the first time. She was accompanied by Roberts' mother,
Patricia E. Knight. The visiting corrections officers did not
request that Plaintiff or Knight consent to an unclothed body
search. The Plaintiff subsequently visited Roberts times between
May 4 and September 28, 2019, and was never asked to consent to an
unclothed body search.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zLmg97
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Skapik, Esq.
Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
Blair J. Berkley, Esq.
SKAPIK LAW GROUP
5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-1
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Telephone: (909) 398-4404
Facsimile: (909) 398-1883
E-mail: mskapik@skapiklaw.com
gskapik@skapiklaw.com
bberkley@skapiklaw.com
MATRIX ABSENCE: Seeks to Strike Weeks Bid for Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, Michael
McDonald, and Cassandra Magdaleno, v. Matrix Absence Management
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order striking:
(1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
(2) the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
for Class Certification, and
(3) the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for
Decertification pursuant to Local Rule LRCiv 7.2(e)(1)
and the Court's Case Management Order.
On July 7, 2022, the Court entered an order striking motions filed
by both parties for violations of the above-listed rules. The Court
gave the parties until July 12, 2022 to cure the deficiencies and
refile the motions. Matrix cured the identified deficiencies and
refiled its motion to decertify collective action on July 8, 2022.
The Plaintiffs refiled their Motion for Class Certification and
accompanying memorandum on July 12, 2022.
However, the Plaintiffs did not cure any of the deficiencies
identified by the Court's July 7, 2022 Order. The Plaintiffs'
motion and memorandum exceeded 17 pages, and almost all of the
cited authority is contained in footnotes rather than within the
body of the text. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for
Decertification was filed on July 22, 2022. Like Plaintiff's
Motion, this filing also contains the same deficiencies identified
in the Court's July 7, 2022 Order. The Response spills over onto
the 18th page and almost all of the cited authority is contained in
footnotes rather than within the body of the text, the Defendant
contends.
Matrix provides absence management services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bdy8Hz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracy A. Miller, Esq.
Douglas (Trey) Lynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C.
2415 East Camelback Road. Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 778-3700
Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
E-mail: tracy.miller@ogletree.com
trey.lynn@ogletree.com
MEDCOM MEDICAL: Faces TCPA Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDCOM MEDICAL MESSAGING, INC.;
PHYSICIANS ANSWERING GROUP EXCHANGE, INC.; and RONALD RAY BROCK II,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00923 (D. Conn., July 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of sending
unsolicited advertisement material using fax messages to doctors'
offices, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express
written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff and putative members of
the Class have suffered actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax
machines during the receipt of such faxes, and increased labor
expenses, says the suit.
Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC is a medical company, with its principal
place of business in Stratford, Connecticut.
MedCom Medical Messaging, Inc. is a provider of medical answering
services, with its principal place of business in Whiting,
Indiana.
Physicians Answering Group Exchange, Inc. is a medical answering
services company, with its principal place of business in Whiting,
Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq.
CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
The Schrafft Center Power House
529 Main Street, Suite P200
Charlestown, MA 02129
Telephone: (617) 872-8652
E-mail: jcampbell@charlestownlawgroup.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
META PLATFORMS: Faces Doe Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC. F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC.;
UCSF MEDICAL CENTER; and DIGNITY HEALTH MEDICAL FOUNDATION,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04293-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants' actions in incorporating Meta Pixel on
websites constitute an extreme invasion of the Plaintiff and Class
members' right to privacy, and violate federal and state statutory
and common law.
According to the complaint, Meta Pixel is incorporated on websites
that are used to store and convey sensitive medical information
intended to stay private. For example, Meta Pixel is embedded on
the websites of 33 of the top 100 hospitals in America and on
password-protected patient portals of seven health systems, such as
those of UCSF Medical Center and Dignity Health Medical Foundation
(hereinafter "Healthcare Defendants").
When a user enters its health information through Healthcare
Defendants' websites and patient portals that incorporate Meta
Pixel, such as to make an appointment, this information --
including, in some instances, specifically what the user is treated
for -- is sent to Meta via Meta Pixel.
The Plaintiff had her User Data, including sensitive medical
information, harvested by Meta through the Meta Pixel tool without
her consent when she entered her information on the patient portals
for UCSF Medical Center (My Chart) and Dignity Health's (My Portal)
websites, and continued to have her privacy violated when her User
Data was used for profit by Meta when it allowed pharmaceutical and
other companies to send her targeted advertising related to her
medical conditions.
As a result of Meta's illegal information gathering, The Plaintiff
received advertisements that were specifically tailored to her User
Data, including sensitive medical information, that she entered on
her patient portals. These advertisements were tailored and
directed to Plaintiff by Meta as part of Meta's advertising
business in which Meta profits from providing third parties with
access to persons most likely to be interested in their products or
services, otherwise known as the target audience, says the suit.
META PLATFORMS, INC. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is
also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank Busch, Esq.
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
Email: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Rachel Kesten, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
rkesten@lowey.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Melissa H. Nafash, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, Floor 34
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: cvillegas@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
mnafash@labaton.com
MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID BROWN CAUDLE, et
al., v. MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eki Richardson entered an order granting the
Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification."
The Court said, "The standard for granting leave to file a surreply
is whether the party making the motion would [absent leave to file
a sur-reply] be unable to contest matters presented to the court
for the first time in the opposing party's reply."Because Defendant
has presented a colorable argument that certain issues and evidence
were presented for the first time in Plaintiff's Reply, the Motion
is granted"."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S5jRgq at no extra charge.[CC]
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ:
MF), Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN), TG Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TGTX), and 17 Education and Technology Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: YQ). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ: MF)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's June 25, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2021
Missfresh purports to be an innovator and leader in China's
neighborhood retail industry which invented the Distributed Mini
Warehouse (DMW) model to operate an integrated online-and-offline
on-demand retail business focusing on offering fresh produce and
fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs).
On or about June 8, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form F-1, which in combination with a
subsequent amendment on Form F-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule
424(b)(4), would be used for the IPO.
On June 23, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC its final prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of
the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Missfresh sold
approximately 21 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") at
$13.00 per ADS.
On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed with the
SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 which announced,
among other things, that the independent Audit Committee of the
Company's board of directors, with the assistance of professional
advisors, "[wa]s in the process of conducting an internal review of
certain matters, including those relating to transactions between
the Company and certain third-party enterprises." On this news,
Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021.
Then, on May 24, 2022, Missfresh disclosed that the Company was
unable to file its 2021 Annual Report by the extended deadline,
"primarily because the Company is unable to complete the audit of
the financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021". On this news, Missfresh's ADSs fell $0.018 per
share, or 9.7%, over the following two trading days, to close at
$0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2022.
Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled
"Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit
Committee-Led Independent Internal Review" which disclosed, among
other things, that the Company's review "identified certain
transactions . . . that exhibit characteristics of questionable
transactions, such as undisclosed relationships between suppliers
and customers, different customers or suppliers sharing the same
contact information, and/or lack of supporting logistics
information" and that consequently, "certain revenue associated
with those reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately
recorded in the Company's financial statements."
Since the IPO, the price of Missfresh's ADSs has fallen over 97%,
closing at $0.3075 per ADS on July 6, 2022.
The class action alleges that Defendants' statements in the
Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when
made because: (1) Missfresh provided false financial figures in its
Registration Statement; (2) Missfresh would need to amend its
financial figures; (3) Missfresh, among other things, had lesser
net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2021; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.
For more information on the Missfresh class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MF
Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN)
Class Period: June 16, 2021 - April 26, 2022 or pursuant to the
Company's June 16, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2022
Molecular Partners operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapeutic proteins. Leading up to and
following the IPO, the Company repeatedly touted the clinical and
commercial prospects of certain of its product candidates under
development in collaboration with other companies.
Among other product candidates, Molecular Partners is developing
ensovibep as a treatment for COVID-19 in collaboration with
Novartis AG ("Novartis"). One of the Company's most important
development strategies for ensovibep includes securing Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for ensovibep from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
In addition, Molecular Partners is developing MP0310 (AMG 506) for
the treatment of certain types of cancer in collaboration with
Amgen Inc. ("Amgen"). The Company granted Amgen, among other
licenses, the right to progress MP0310's development program into
later stage development, including into combination trials,
following Phase 1 data.
On April 22, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a registration
statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 15, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On June 16, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the
"Offering Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Molecular Partners conducted
the IPO, issuing 3 million of its ADSs to the public at the IPO
price $21.25 per ADS, for proceeds to the Company of over $59
million, after underwriting discounts and commissions, and before
expenses.
On November 16, 2021, Molecular Partners disclosed that "a planned
futility analysis of ensovibep in [an] ongoing [Phase 3] clinical
study . . . has not met the thresholds required to continue
enrollment of adults with COVID-19 in the hospitalized setting."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $4.64 per ADS, or
31.37%, to close at $10.15 per ADS on November 16, 2021.
On April 26, 2022, months after applying for EUA from the FDA for
ensovibep, Novartis' Chief Executive Officer, Vas Narasimhan,
disclosed that "given the latest feedback . . . in our discussions
with the [FDA], we would expect the agency to require a Phase 3
study before granting an EUA approval or a general approval" for
ensovibep, and that "we need to make a kind of sober evaluation as
to is it a doable study in light of the waning rates of COVID
around the world[.]"
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $2.68 per ADS, or
16.17%, to close at $13.89 per ADS on April 26, 2022.
Then, also on April 26, 2022, during after-market hours, Molecular
Partners "announced that Amgen . . . has informed the Company of
their decision to return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular
Partners following a strategic pipeline review."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $5.19 per ADS, or
37.37%, to close at $8.70 per ADS on April 27, 2022—a total
decline of $7.87 per ADS, or 47.5%, over two consecutive trading
days, and 59.06% below the $21.25 per ADS IPO price.
As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Molecular
Partners' ADSs continued to trade below the $21.25 per ADS IPO
price, damaging investors.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of
ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (iii) waning global rates
of COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing
EUA for ensovibep; (iv) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less
attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(v) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen
would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (vi) as
a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial
prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (vii) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
For more information on the Molecular Partners class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MOLN
TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGTX)
Class Period: January 15, 2020 - May 31, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 16, 2022
TG Therapeutics, a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of
novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases.
The Company's therapeutic product candidates include Ublituximab,
an investigational glycoengineered monoclonal antibody for the
treatment of B-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia ("CLL"), and relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis; and
Umbralisib, or UKONIQ, an oral inhibitor of PI3K-delta and
CK1-epsilon for the treatment of CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and
follicular lymphoma.
In January 2020, TG Therapeutics initiated a rolling submission of
a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), requesting accelerated approval of
Umbralisib as a treatment for patients with previously treated
marginal zone lymphoma ("MZL") and follicular lymphoma ("FL") (the
"Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA").
In December 2020, TG Therapeutics initiated a rolling submission of
a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for Ublituximab
in combination with Umbralisib (together, "U2"), as a treatment for
patients with CLL (the "U2 BLA").
In May 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a supplemental New Drug
Application ("sNDA") for Umbralisib to add an indication for CLL
and small lymphocytic lymphoma ("SLL") in combination with
Ublituximab (the "U2 sNDA").
In September 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a BLA to the FDA for
Ublituximab as a treatment for patients with relapsing forms of
multiple sclerosis ("RMS") (the "Ublituximab RMS BLA").
On November 30, 2021, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
"announc[ing] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
notified the Company that it plans to host a meeting of the
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) in connection with its
review of the pending Biologics License Application
(BLA)/supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the combination
of ublituximab and UKONIQ® (umbralisib) (combination referred to
as U2) for the treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." TG
Therapeutics advised that "[t]he FDA has notified the Company that
potential questions and discussion topics for the ODAC include: the
benefit-risk of the U2 combination in the treatment of CLL or SLL,
and the benefit-risk of UKONIQ in relapsed/refractory marginal zone
lymphoma (MZL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). In addition, as part of
the benefit-risk analysis, the overall safety profile of the U2
regimen, including adverse events (serious and Grade 3-4),
discontinuations due to adverse events, and dose modifications, is
expected to be reviewed", stating that "[t]he FDA's concern giving
rise to the ODAC meeting appears to stem from an early analysis of
overall survival from the UNITY-CLL trial."
On this news, TG 'Therapeutics' stock price fell $8.16 per share,
or 34.93%, to close at $15.20 per share on November 30, 2021.
Then, on April 15, 2022, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company has voluntarily withdrawn the
pending Biologics License Application (BLA)/supplemental New Drug
Application (sNDA) for the combination of ublituximab and UKONIQ®
(umbralisib) (combination referred to as U2) for the treatment of
adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small
lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." The press release stated that "[t]he
decision to withdraw was based on recently updated overall survival
(OS) data from the UNITY-CLL Phase 3 trial that showed an
increasing imbalance in OS."
On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $1.93 per share, or
21.81%, to close at $6.92 per share on April 18, 2022.
Then, on May 31, 2022, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
announcing that the FDA extended the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
date for Ublituximab to December 28, 2022 "to allow time to review
a submission provided by the Company in response to an FDA
information request, which the FDA deemed a major amendment."
On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $0.75 per share, or
14.51%, to close at $4.42 per share on May 31, 2022.
Finally, on June 1, 2022, the FDA announced that, due to safety
concerns, it had withdrawn its approval for Umbralisib for the
treatment of MZL and FL. Specifically, the FDA provided that
"[u]pdated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to
show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving
[UKONIQ]. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with
[UKONIQ] outweigh its benefits."
On this news, TG 'Therapeutics' stock price fell $0.51 per share,
or 11.53%, to close at $3.91 per share on June 1, 2022.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) clinical trials revealed
significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall
survival data of Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain FDA approval
of the Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA, the U2 BLA, the U2 sNDA, or the
Ublituximab RMS BLA in their current forms; (iii) as a result, the
Company had significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's
clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) therefore, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
For more information on the TG Therapeutics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TGTX
17 Education and Technology Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: YQ)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's December 4, 2020 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 19, 2022
On December 4, 2020, 17EdTech held its IPO, selling approximately
27,400,000 American Depository Shares ("ADSs") at $10.50 per ADS.
On July 23, 2021, the Company stated that china's new regulations
regarding after-school tutoring had "not bene published, and the
Company ahs not received official notification of the
regulations."
On this news, 17EdTech's ADS price fell $3.56, or 39%, to close at
$5.64 per ADS on July 23, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on July 26, 2021, the Company announced that the recently
published regulatiosn regarding after-school tutoring "will have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations and
prospect."
On this news, 17EdTech's ADS price fell $1.48, or 26%, to close at
$4.16 per ADS on July 26, 2021.
Then, on August 25, 2021, 17EdTech disclosed that "the Company
[had] stopped and will stop offering online Academic AST classes
over weekends, national holidays and school break periods."
On this news, 17EdTech's ADS price fell 5% to close at $4.48 per
ADS on August 25, 2021.
Then, on June 9, 2022, after market hours, the Company announced
its first quarter financial results, disclosing a net loss of #3.9
million on sales of $36.82 million - a nearly 50% loss in revenue
from the previous year.
On this news, 17EdTech's ADS price fell $0.65, or 21.3%, to close
at $2.40 on June 10, 2022, thereby injuring investors further.
Since the IPO, 17EdTech's ADSs have traded as low as $1.54 per ADS,
representing an 85% decline from the IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Defendant
17EdTech's K-12 Academic AST Services would end less than a year
after the IPO; (2) as part of its ongoing regulatory efforts,
Chinese authorities would imminently curtail and/or end 17EdTech's
core business; and (3) as a result, Defendant's positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
For more information on the 17EdTech class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/YQ
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICKIE MULLINS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, Case No. 5:21-CV-00120-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following classes:
-- North Carolina Class
"All North Carolina consumers who between June 11, 2017,
and June 11, 2021, were sent a debt collection letter by
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. using its third-party
letter vendor, PCI Group;" and
-- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Subclass
"All North Carolina consumers who between June 11, 2020
and June 11, 2021, were sent a debt collection letter by
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. using its third-party
letter vendor, PCI Group."
Monarch Recovery is a premier accounts receivable management
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bgmThi
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
S. Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
michael.dunn@milberg.com
MOTTS LLP: Trujillo Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MOTTS LLP, KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., DR
PEPPER/SEVEN UP INC., and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 22STCV16589, 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 July 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05103 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unfair business practices, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
information on pay stubs, failure to timely pay wages, and failure
to provide employment records upon request.
Motts LLP is a beverage company, headquartered in Plano, Texas.
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. is a producer of beverages, headquartered in
Plano, Texas.
Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. is a soft-drink manufacturing company based
in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
rtumanyan@reedsmith.com
bmhernandez@reedsmith.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Benscoter Breach Suit Goes to M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN BENSCOTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. CV-22-00592, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas,
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-01142-MWB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, breach of contract, and
breach of Pennsylvania's Unfair Insurance Practices Act.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance firm
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas A. Cummins, Esq.
BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC
1500 Market Street, 32nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 561-4300
E-mail: cummins@bbs-law.com
NCAA: Ruling Gives Judges Lesson on High-Rank Exec Depositions
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a new ruling
from the Indiana Supreme Court gives trial judges a lesson on when
high-ranking executives can be forced into depositions.
In a lawsuit involving the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Jennifer Finnerty wants to depose three high-ranking
executives over claims the NCAA failed to implement proper policies
for preventing, diagnosing and managing football head injuries.
Her case is brought on behalf of Cullen Finnerty, who played
football at the University of Toledo and Grand Valley State
University. Two other plaintiffs joined the case.
They want to depose executives like NCAA President Mark Emmert. The
organization already faces hundreds of similar lawsuits, but the
Marion County trial judge in Finnerty's case ordered the
depositions.
On appeal, the NCAA asked the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt the
"apex doctrine," which requires plaintiffs to make "certain initial
showings" before they are allowed to depose top-level corporate
executives.
The court did not officially adopt the apex doctrine in a ruling
issued July 19. It did, however, "harmonize its principles with our
trial rules" as it issued the following guidance for trial judges:
They must determine if the deponent qualifies as an apex official
before relying on that status in deciding whether good cause for
cancelling the deposition exists. To do so, they must determine if
the executive lacks personal knowledge of relevant information, if
the information can be obtained somewhere else and if the
deposition would be unreasonably duplicative;
They must determine if the requesting party has negated or rebutted
the apex status or good cause showing – "For example, if the apex
official asserts a lack of knowledge related to the litigation's
subject matter, the party seeking the deposition may counter this
allegation with specific facts demonstrating that the official has
relevant, personal knowledge. Or if an apex official alleges that
the information sought is available through less intrusive
discovery methods, the party seeking the deposition could show that
alternative methods are unavailable, inadequate, or already
exhausted," the ruling says.
The trial court will now take these instructions and issue a new
ruling on whether the depositions of Emmert and others will
transpire.
The Product Liability Advisory Council, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the State of Indiana each filed amicus briefs in the
case. [GN]
NEW SOUTH WALES: Festival Patrons File Suit Over Strip Searches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
Australian music festival patrons have filed a class-action lawsuit
against New South Wales police.
The lawyers for the group allege that police carried out unlawful
strip searches at music festivals. That includes the Splendour in
the Grass music festival over a six-year period. The class action
was first revealed in May 2020 and follows a series of
controversies surrounding the police's use of strip-search powers.
The class-action centers on a claim from the lead plaintiff, Raya
Meredith. Meredith alleges she was made to lift her breasts and
show a police officer her genitals during a strip-search at the
2018 Splendour in the Grass Festival.
She describes the search as 'degrading, scary, and confusing' and
police found no illegal drugs on her person. Lawyers allege police
stopped her in 2018 with a drug-sniffing dog, telling her the dog
'alerted' to a scent on her.
Meredith was ordered to surrender her handbag and taken to a
different area. Her lawyers allege people were entering and exiting
the strip-search area as officers told her to remove her shoes and
clothing. Once she did, she alleges she was "ordered to lift her
breasts and bend over, and to show the officer her genitals to
prove that the only item inserted in her body was a tampon."
"She says that while she was naked from the waist down, a male
officer returned with her handbag to the area she was being
searched," the complaint continues. Meredith says the strip search
returned no results and took around 30 minutes but left a lasting
impact. Plaintiffs allege people, including children, were told to
strip naked, squat and cough, and lift or move their genitals for
officers.
"Women were ordered to remove sanitary products so they too could
be inspected," the lawyers' statement reads. "Group members are
seeking damages, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages from the
state. This could be in the order of tens of thousands of dollars
for those subjected to particularly invasive or distressing
searches."
A 2019 report from The Guardian revealed that NSW police
strip-searched more than 100 girls over the three previous years at
music festivals. "With this class action, Redfern Legal Centre and
Slater & Gordon are seeking compensation and redress for the
significant numbers of people believed to have been unlawfully
searched," adds Samantha Lee, a senior police accountability
solicitor at Redfern Legal Centre. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Ayala, et al, Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE J. AYALA, JR. and
JEFF SANTOS, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of
other class members similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC. D/B/A NISSAN USA, Case No. 6:20-cv-01625-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class with respect to Counts III-VI of the
Amended Complaint;
2. designating the Plaintiffs Jose J. Ayala Jr. and Jeff
Santos as class representatives; and
3. designating Eclat Law, LLP as class counsel
The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC) against
Nissan for willful and systematic misconduct violating federal and
state laws -- Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Florida Minimum
Wage Act ("FMWA"), amongst others.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class members were Nissan
automobile service employees who worked certified Florida Nissan
dealerships; they were subject to Nissan's compensation program
generally referred to as "flat-rate" for services performed for
Nissan.
Nissan North America manufactures and sells Nissan vehicles through
a network of approximately 1,082 Nissan dealers in the United
States. Nissan also provides a variety of vehicle warranty and
services to its customers at certified Nissan dealerships
throughout the Country, including least 62 certified Nissan
dealerships in Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PKvYhm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
Jolynn M. Falto, Esq.
ECLAT LAW, LLP
307 Cranes Roost Blvd., Suite 2010
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 636-7004
Facsimile: (888) 413- 0249
E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com
jfalto@eclatlaw.com
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks to Extend Class Cert Response to Aug. 12
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA
MENGONI; LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA
MILLER; RODRIGUEZ; LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA MORAS; and
ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant applies, ex parte,
pursuant to Central District Local Rule 7-19, for an order:
1. extending the deadline for NNA to respond to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from August 12,
2022 until September 9, 2022;
2. extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to reply in
support of their Motion for Class Certification from
August 26, 2022 until September 30, 2022; and
3. increasing the page limit for NNA's opposition brief to 35
pages.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zJALdr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Detherage, Esq.
Garrett S. Llewellyn, Esq.
Amy C. Poyer, Esq.
Monica Brownewell Smith, Esq.
Nadine Kohane, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 284-3880
Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
E-mail: andrew.detherage@btlaw.com
garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com
amy.poyer@btlaw.com
monica.brownewell@btlaw.com
nadine.kohane@btlaw.com
NOMI HEALTH: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY POOLE v. NOMI
HEALTH, INC. AND MEDX STAFFING INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-21383-KMW
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
A. granting conditional certification of a Collective Action
under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) for the proposed Putative Class defined as follows:
"All persons who are currently, or who were, working for
Nomi and Medx from May 3, 2019, to the present as van
drivers (including operations support staff and warehouse
workers), or other similarly titled positions, either
directly by or through any of their subsidiaries or
affiliated companies;"
B. appointing Mr. Poole as the representative of the Putative
Class with authority to appear at any mediation/settlement
conference and to bind the Putative Class;
C. requiring that within 10 days, the Defendants shall format
and produce, as a hard copy and electronically, an Excel
spreadsheet with a complete list of each person in
alphabetical order by last name -- including his/her last
known home address, cellular telephone number, and email
address in a separate field -- who worked as a van driver,
operations support staff, a warehouse worker, or other
similarly titled position for Defendants at any time
between May 3, 2019 and the present to facilitate the
preparation and sending of notice;
D. permitting Mr. Poole's counsel to send a Court-Approved
Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all members of the
Putative Class about their rights to opt into this
collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit and
to call/text each to ensure that they received the Notice
forms;
E. permitting Mr. Poole's counsel to send a Court-Approved
Reminder Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all Putative
Class members and to call/text each to ensure that they
received the Reminder Notice; and
F. requiring the Defendants to post notice in their break
room for the entire notice period and to provide a copy of
the Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members in
the next paycheck / pay stub provided to Defendants'
current employees.
The Plaintiff brings this collective action for himself and other
similarly-situated current and former van drivers, operation
support staff, and warehouse workers of the Defendants, for failing
to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 a week.
The allegations in the Complaint, coupled with the Declarations of
Johnny Poole and Adrian Moore, demonstrate that the Defendants
subjected Mr. Poole and the Putative Class to a uniformly
applicable compensation policy that deprived them of the overtime
wages they earned in violation of the FLSA.
Mr. Poole filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2022. Mr. Adrian Moore
joined this case as an Opt-In Plaintiff on June 28, 2022.
The Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on June
9, 2022, admitting that they engaged in interstate commerce. The
Defendants also asserted 17 affirmative defenses that they pled as
applicable to Mr. Poole and their other employees.
The Defendants employed Mr. Poole as a van driver from on or around
October 10, 2021 through March 11, 2022. Mr. Poole claims that the
Defendants did not pay him overtime for the time he spent driving
vans back and forth to COVID-19 testing and treatment sites to
which they assigned him to work. The Defendants did not pay him
overtime because they (mis)classified and paid him as an
independent contractor instead of as an employee.
Mr. Poole also stated that his coworkers were all hired as "van
drivers", but would sometimes be placed in other positions labeled
as "operation s support" or "warehouse workers" depending on the
Defendants' needs.
NoMi Health has conducted healthcare testing and treatment in the
Southern District of Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oIM7rY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Toussaint Cummings, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
E-mail: toussaint@fairlawattorney.com
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL: Court Revives Miami Gardens Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Miami Gardens, etc., Appellant, v. City of
North Miami Beach, etc., Appellee, Case No. 3D21-865 (Fla. Dist.
App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District,
affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court's Final Order
Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint with
Prejudice.
The District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's dismissal of
question (c) in Count I of the Amended Complaint, as well as the
dismissal of Count III. It reverses the dismissal of questions (a)
and (b) in Count I and the dismissal of Count II of the Amended
Complaint. The case is remanded for questions (a) and (b) in Count
I to be reinstated; for Count II to be reinstated; and for further
proceedings on Counts I and II. The District Court of Appeal
remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
The Norwood Water Treatment Plant is located within the
geographical boundaries of the City of Miami Gardens. Before Miami
Gardens was incorporated on May 13, 2003, as well as after, the
City of North Miami Beach owned the Norwood Plant. NMB operated the
Norwood Plant, which treats and distributes water to Miami Gardens,
as well as consumers in Miami Gardens and NMB.
On Jan. 7, 2003, NMB adopted an ordinance pursuant to section
180.191, Florida Statute (2003). In Ordinance Number 2002-25, NMB
increased the surcharge from 15% to 25% for customers residing
outside NMB's corporate limits that are served by NMB's water and
sewer utility, the Norwood Plant.
On May 22, 2017, NMB entered into an agreement with a private
contractor from Colorado, CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., which took
over the day-to-day operations of the Norwood Pant. The agreement
provided that CH2M was to operate, maintain, repair, replace, and
manage the Norwood Plant. According to the agreement, NMB retained
ownership of the Norwood plant, retained the right to the revenues
generated by the plant, agreed to pay CH2M a fixed fee, and
retained the "sole power, authority and responsibility for
establishing policy and setting rates, charges, rents, surcharges
and other amounts payable."
After the Norwood Plant was privatized in 2017, NMB continued to
charge Miami Gardens and Miami Gardens' consumers, both residents
and business entities, the 25% surcharge on water distributed from
the Norwood Plant pursuant to section 180.191(1)(a), Florida
Statutes (2003). NMB consumers are not charged this 25% surcharge.
As a result, in December 2018, Miami Gardens -- on behalf of itself
and similarly situated residents or business entities located
within the city of Miami Gardens that NMB billed and continued to
bill for water services -- sued NMB to cease charging the 25%
surcharge to Miami Gardens' consumers. Miami Gardens sought, in
Count I, a declaratory judgment seeking the answer to three
questions:
(a) If NMB assigned to a private contractor all operational
responsibility for water utilities it owns that are located outside
its geographical bounds, is North Miami Beach still operating those
water utilities?
(b) If NMB is no longer operating water utilities it owns that
are located outside its geographical bounds, may NMB lawfully
charge a 25% surcharge on water provided to consumers within the
City of Miami Gardens?
(c) Does Section 180.191, Florida Statutes provide for the
imposition of a 25% surcharge per billing cycle by [NMB] upon the
City of Miami Gardens and the members of the class for water drawn
from the aquifer located within the boundaries of the City of Miami
Gardens which is processed in and never leaves the boundaries of
the municipality?
Miami Gardens further sought an injunction on the imposition of the
25% surcharge to Miami Gardens consumers, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs, as provided in section 180.191, Florida Statute
(2003).
In Count II of the complaint, Miami Gardens alleges a violation of
section 180.191 because it claimed NMB was not operating the water
utility as required by the statute and requested a refund of all
surcharges unlawfully collected by NMB after the Norwood Plant was
privatized.
The action was abated for six months for the parties to resolve the
dispute. After no resolution, the parties returned to court. In
August 2019, NMB filed a motion to dismiss Miami Gardens'
complaint. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
The trial court stated it did not see a reason to dismiss Miami
Gardens' complaint and denied NMB's motion.
Thereafter, the action was briefly stayed for NMB to appeal the
trial court's order denying NMB's motion to dismiss. On July 7,
2020, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Miami Gardens
had filed an amended complaint. That same day, NMB filed a third
motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, while the lawsuit was pending, NMB filed a Suggestion
of Mootness in October 2020. On March 17, 2021, the trial court
heard NMB's latest motion to dismiss. At the end of the hearing,
based on the materials submitted and arguments made by counsel, the
trial court granted NMB's motion for dismissal with prejudice.
The appeal followed. Miami Gardens raises four issues on appeal.
Miami Gardens contends the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not
bar its claims; the trial court erred in dismissing the entire
amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action; and its
claims in Count I and II based on its contention that NMB was not
authorized to impose a 25% surcharge while it was not operating the
Norwood Plant are not moot.
"We agree in part with Miami Gardens," the appellate court says.
Miami Garden's first issue on appeal is that sovereign immunity is
not a bar to its claims against NMB. The District Court of Appeal
agrees. NMB has no sovereign immunity protection, as section
180.191(2) specifically authorizes an action against a
municipality, which NMB is. Thus, sovereign immunity was not a bar
to any of Miami Gardens' claims. Furthermore, in Bill Stroop
Roofing, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 788 So.2d 365, 368 (Fla.
3d DCA 2001), the Court held that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity does not protect a municipality from returning money
illegally collected by them.
Accordingly, because sovereign immunity was the trial court's only
ground for dismissal of Count II of Miami Gardens' amended
complaint, the trial court erred in dismissing Count II of the
amended complaint. Sovereign immunity was one of the grounds for
dismissal of Count III, thus, the trial court erred in basing its
dismissal of Count III on sovereign immunity grounds.
Count II of Miami Gardens' Amended Complaint alleged a violation of
section 180.191 that mandates that a municipality must be operating
the water utility in order to be able to add a 25% surcharge on
water provided to consumers outside of the municipality's
boundaries, in this case, Miami Gardens consumers. Miami Gardens
alleged that since the time NMB entered into the water operation
agreement, NMB no longer operated a water utility within the
meaning of section 180.191. Looking to the four corners of the
complaint and taking the allegations in the amended complaint as
true, Miami Gardens has stated a claim against NMB based on Miami
Gardens' operational theory. In addition, section 180.191 provides
that the trial court in its discretion may award the prevailing
party treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees.
Next, Miami Gardens contends the trial court erred in dismissing
the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On
this point, the District Court of Appeal opines the trial court was
correct. The clear and unambiguous wording of the statute allows
NMB to impose a surcharge of not more than 25% under section
180.191(1)(a) to Miami Gardens consumers while NMB is operating the
water facility, as the Miami Gardens customers are located outside
the boundaries of the NMB municipality. And, as NMB correctly
contends, the Florida Supreme Court in Mohme did not consider
proximity to the utility a factor in analyzing whether it was
proper to impose a surcharge on consumers located outside the
boundaries of the operating municipality. "Thus, under the plain
language of section 180.191(1)(a), we agree that NMB was permitted
to charge the 25% surcharge during the period of time when NMB
operated the Norwood Plant," the appeals court says.
With regard to Count III of the amended complaint, the trial court
was correct in dismissing Count III for refund because it is based
on Miami Gardens' location theory and the proximity of Miami
Gardens' consumers to the Norwood Plant. The plain language of
section 180.191 does not support Miami Gardens' position on this
issue, according to the appeals court.
Finally, Miami Gardens argues its claims are not moot. In its
order, the trial court concluded that "the portion of Count I
seeking a declaration that NMB is not authorized to impose a 25%
surcharge" after the Norwood Plant was privatized was mooted by
termination of the contract that privatized the plant and because
the "Plaintiff no longer pays the 25% surcharge."
The District Court of Appeal opines that the trial court cannot
engage in fact-finding on a motion to dismiss. And because the
letter was not supported by affidavit or testimony, was unsworn to,
or otherwise authenticated, it is not admissible as evidence. In
addition, at a minimum, a present controversy existed with respect
to the period between May 22, 2017 and Oct. 30, 2019 as far as
Miami Gardens is concerned and with respect to the period between
May 22, 2017 and Aug. 6, 2020 in regards to the remaining class
members, as NMB never stopped charging the remaining class members
the 25% surcharge. Similarly, Miami Gardens was in doubt about its
rights, and a controversy existed for the recovery of the refund
during the period that Miami Gardens alleges NMB did not operate
the Norwood Plant. Thus, that issue is not moot.
The decision is not final until disposition of timely filed motion
for rehearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2fjthwsr from Leagle.com.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., and
Eugene E. Stearns -- estearns@stearnsweaver.com -- Matthew C. Dates
-- mdates@stearnsweaver.com -- and David T. Coulter --
dcoulter@stearnsweaver.com -- for appellant, City of Miami
Gardens.
Shubin & Bass, P.A., and John K. Shubin -- jshubin@shubinbass.com
-- Katherine R. Maxwell -- kmaxwell@shubinbass.com -- and Ian E.
DeMello -- idemello@shubinbass.com -- for appellee.
PARKASH 1630: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELFINO ADAN DIAZ v.
PARKASH 1630, LLC, and VED PARKASH, Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a Fair Labors Standards Act
(FLSA) Collective Action;
2. Authorizing Notice to all Covered Employees, such notice
to include a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized
by FLSA;
3. Approving the proposed FLSA notice and consent forms; and
4. Producing the names, last known mailing addresses,
e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers, of all Covered
Employees.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYUiMs
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway -- Suit 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
PHARMACARE US: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT,
DAMARIS LUCIANO, and ROB DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., Case No. (),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the following
scheduling order deadlines as follows:
-- Expert witness disclosures in September 30, 2022
support of class certification
are due on:
-- Rebuttal and supplemental November 1, 2022
witness disclosures in support
of class certification are
due on:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class December 12, 2022
certification is due on:
-- Defendant's opposition to January 20, 2023
Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification
is due on:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support February 10, 2023
of motion for class
certification is due on:
The operative complaint was filed on November 19, 2021. On January
26, 2022, the Court set a pretrial schedule, requiring the parties
to serve expert witness disclosures in support of class
certification on August 1, 2022 and rebuttal and supplemental
witness disclosures in support of class certification on September
2, 2022, and ordering Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification by October 11, 2022.
On July 8, 2022, the Court ordered that Defendant provide
supplemental responses to interrogatories by July 22, 2022 and
requests for the production by August 5, 2022.
PharmaCare established as a specialty generic and brand
pharmaceutical wholesaler.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYULyc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton Kashima, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Erin Ruben, Esq.
Sarah Spangenburg, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (714) 651-8845
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
mgeer@milberg.com
eruben@milberg.com
sspangenburg@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence E. Butler, Esq.
Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq.
Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
Aaron Belzer, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: October 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE: PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC. STOCKHOLDERS' LITIGATION
C.A. No. 2020-0440-KSJM
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
This notice is for all former record holders and beneficial owners
of Class A common stock of Pivotal Software, Inc. ("Pivotal") who
received $15 per share in cash in exchange for their shares of
Pivotal Class A common stock in connection with the acquisition of
Pivotal by VMware, Inc. (the "Class Shares"), in their capacities
as record holders or beneficial owners of Class Shares, together
with their heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest,
in each case in their capacity as holders of Class Shares (the
"Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized
terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in
this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
dated June 2, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Kenia Lopez ("Plaintiff"),
on behalf of herself and the other members of the Court-certified
Class, with the exception of HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Merger
Strategies Master Fund L.P.; (ii) defendants VMware, Inc., Dell
Technologies Inc., Michael S. Dell, and Robert C. Mee (together,
"Defendants"); and (iii) Cynthia Gaylor (the "Former Defendant")
have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $42,500,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in
the Stipulation entered into between Plaintiff, Defendants, and the
Former Defendant. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 4,
2022 at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Kathaleen S. McCormick,
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone
or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among
other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by
the Court; (ii) determine whether the Judgment, substantially in
the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be
entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants;
(iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be
approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, should be approved; (v) hear
and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or Plaintiff's application for an
incentive award; and (vi) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Pivotal Software Stockholders
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91321, Seattle,
WA 98111, 888-681-2126, or
info@PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the
Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of shares of Pivotal Class A common
stock held by the Eligible Class Member at the time such shares
were exchanged for the Acquisition Consideration and (ii) the
"Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined
by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the
total number of shares Pivotal Class A common stock held by all of
the Eligible Class Members at the time such shares were exchanged
for the Acquisition Consideration. As explained in further detail
in the Notice at paragraphs 38-47, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class
Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class
Members received the Acquisition Consideration. Eligible Class
Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment
from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's application for
an incentive award, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to
Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than September 20, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Pivotal Software Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91321
Seattle, WA 98111
888-681-2126
info@PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Co-Lead Counsel:
Edward Timlin
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
Joel Fleming
Block & Leviton LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
617-398‑5600
joel@blockleviton.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
SOURCE JND Legal Administration
This notice is for all former record holders and beneficial owners
of Class A common stock of Pivotal Software, Inc. ("Pivotal") who
received $15 per share in cash in exchange for their shares of
Pivotal Class A common stock in connection with the acquisition of
Pivotal by VMware, Inc. (the "Class Shares"), in their capacities
as record holders or beneficial owners of Class Shares, together
with their heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest,
in each case in their capacity as holders of Class Shares (the
"Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized
terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in
this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
dated June 2, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Kenia Lopez ("Plaintiff"),
on behalf of herself and the other members of the Court-certified
Class, with the exception of HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Merger
Strategies Master Fund L.P.; (ii) defendants VMware, Inc., Dell
Technologies Inc., Michael S. Dell, and Robert C. Mee (together,
"Defendants"); and (iii) Cynthia Gaylor (the "Former Defendant")
have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $42,500,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in
the Stipulation entered into between Plaintiff, Defendants, and the
Former Defendant. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 4,
2022 at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Kathaleen S. McCormick,
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone
or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among
other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by
the Court; (ii) determine whether the Judgment, substantially in
the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be
entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants;
(iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be
approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, should be approved; (v) hear
and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or Plaintiff's application for an
incentive award; and (vi) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Pivotal Software Stockholders
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91321, Seattle,
WA 98111, 888-681-2126, or
info@PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the
Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of shares of Pivotal Class A common
stock held by the Eligible Class Member at the time such shares
were exchanged for the Acquisition Consideration and (ii) the
"Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined
by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the
total number of shares Pivotal Class A common stock held by all of
the Eligible Class Members at the time such shares were exchanged
for the Acquisition Consideration. As explained in further detail
in the Notice at paragraphs 38-47, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class
Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class
Members received the Acquisition Consideration. Eligible Class
Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment
from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's application for
an incentive award, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to
Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than September 20, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Pivotal Software Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91321
Seattle, WA 98111
888-681-2126
info@PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com
www.PivotalSoftwareStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Co-Lead Counsel:
Edward Timlin
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
Joel Fleming
Block & Leviton LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
617-398‑5600
joel@blockleviton.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN]
PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Won't Disseminate Class Notice in Edwards Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORY EDWARDS, et al., On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C.
Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings
Pending Appeal.
The Court will not proceed with dissemination of notice to class
members at this time as the class may change.
One of the looming questions in this hybrid FLSA/Rule 23 class
action case is the rate of reimbursement. The Court and the counsel
have discussed resolving the matter at various times over the
years, but nothing has materialized. During this same timeframe,
the parties have engaged in discovery and been working towards
class certification. Various stays and delays over the years have
altered the trajectory of this case and many times there has not
been a formal scheduling order in place. Eventually, however, the
Court set a deadline for class certification briefing and for
briefing on the critical question of reimbursement.
On Dec. 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking class
certification for five classes -- one each in Idaho, Colorado,
Kentucky, New York, and North Dakota. Thereafter, the Court
approved various extensions to the class certification briefing
schedule. These postponements, while warranted, naturally extended
into the time set for discovery and briefing on the matter of
reimbursement.
As a result, on March 4, 2022, the Court vacated all deadlines that
were (at that time) still outstanding. It did this at the request
of the Plaintiffs, and over the Defendants' objections. Because the
case is complicated and there have been scheduling complications in
the past, the Court deemed it best to "take matters up one at a
time." Accordingly, it vacated all deadlines, set a hearing for the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and asked the parties to
begin drafting their motions for summary judgment on reimbursement.
It indicated those motions would be due 30 days after the Court
issued its decision on class certification.
The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on April 21, 2022, and took the matter under
advisement. On June 7, 2022, it issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order granting said motion. As part of that order, the Court not
only granted class certification for the five sub-classes the
Plaintiffs requested, but also appointed the class counsel and
approved the class notification.
In accordance with prior order -- and because the Court issued its
decision on class certification on June 7, 2022 -- the parties'
deadline for filing summary judgment motions on the reimbursement
question became July 7, 2022.
On June 21, 2022, the Court received notice that the Defendants had
filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f) before the Ninth Circuit.
On June 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings
in district court pending the resolution of their Petition. To
avoid overlapping motion practice, the Court held in abeyance the
July 7 deadline for summary judgment briefs so that the parties
could focus on Defendant's Motion to Stay. The Plaintiffs filed
opposition to the Motion to Stay and the Defendants replied.
While the Defendants seek a stay of "all proceedings in this
matter," the only things "pending" are the summary judgment
briefing and the class notice. The Court has already stayed summary
judgment briefing and the Plaintiffs have indicated they will not
send out class notice until the matter is resolved.
The Supreme Court has identified four factors "regulating the
issuance of a stay" pending interlocutory appeals, both at the
district and appellate level: (1) whether the stay applicant has
made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a
stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure
the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the
public interest lies.
Under the first prong, the Defendants "need not demonstrate that it
is more likely than not that they will win on the merits." Rather,
they must show "serious legal questions are raised" by the appeal
or that there is a "fair prospect" or "reasonable probability" of
success, or a "substantial case on the merits."
The Defendants identify two issues they raised in their Petition
they believe satisfy this prong: (1) whether "class claims relating
back to the original Complaint may expand a state statute of
limitations," and (2) "whether the Court applied the incorrect
legal standards when it certified the state law classes under Rule
23."
Judge Nye finds that the Defendants have raised an interesting
question. He concludes that the question raised by the Defendants
related to Rule 15 and state statutes of limitation is an important
question. He is not entirely convinced the matter needs emergency
resolution at this moment, but they have pursued that route. He
does not feel, however, that a full stay is necessary to protect
the Defendants' interest. He says, they can pursue its appeal and
the Court can continue on with other matters in the case that must,
of necessity, be adjudicated.
Judge Nye will not proceed with dissemination of notice to class
members at this time as the class may change. The Defendants
should, however, marshal the information necessary to compile the
appropriate lists so they can be prepared to turn that over to the
Plaintiffs within 14 days of any decision by the Circuit on their
Petition.
Judge Nye will proceed with resolving the matter of legal
reimbursement. He is not aware of whether there will be a single
motion, or cross motions, on this matter. Regardless, he says, any
motion on this topic will be filed by Aug. 5, 2022. The Court's
standard briefing schedule will follow. A hearing will be set in
due course.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56wmf4mw from
Leagle.com.
PLAID INC: Class Action Settlement in Cottle Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES COTTLE, et al., v.
PLAID INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class action settlement and granting in part
Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service
awards.
The Court said, "Within 21 days after the distribution of
settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees, Class Counsel
shall file a Post-Distribution Accounting (PDA) in accordance with
the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements, available at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements.
The PDA must contain all information listed in the Guidance and
shall be filed with the court and posted on the Settlement Website.
A final PDA must be filed after the distribution of all funds."
This action consists of five separately-filed putative class
actions in which named plaintiffs allege that Plaid uses
consumers’ banking login credentials to harvest and sell detailed
financial data without their consent. The court consolidated the
matters in July 2020.
Plaid is a tech startup in the financial technology or "fintech"
industry. It provides bank "linking" and verification services for
fintech apps that consumers use to send and receive money from
their financial accounts, such as Venmo, Coinbase, Cash App, and
Stripe.
According to Plaintiffs, Plaid designed the login screens in its
interface to give them the look and feel of login screens used by
individual financial institutions. However, Plaintiffs allege,
Plaid fails to disclose to its users that they are not actually
interfacing with their bank.
The Plaintiffs further allege that by using the accumulated
consumer bank login information, Plaid has collected a significant
amount of consumer banking data that it routinely sells to third
parties.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JeLwaK at no extra charge.[CC]
POWERFORCE OF HOUSTON: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Williams Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIANA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. POWERFORCE OF HOUSTON,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv—2483 (S.D. Tex., July 26, 2022)
is brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages
against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a delivery driver from
December 2020 through February 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were misclassified by the Defendant as an independent
contractor. While they were employed by the Defendant, they
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, specifically from 12
to 16 hours per day delivering blood, medication, and supplies from
Monday through Sunday. However, the Defendant denied them of
overtime premiums at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages at the applicable
rate, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount to the
overtime wages damages, prejudgment interest, all costs and
attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
Powerforce of Houston, Inc. provides delivery services to customers
in various business industries in the Houston and surrounding
areas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Tel: (713) 868-3388
Fax: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
PRATT AND WHITNEY: Faces Antitrust Class Suits
----------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that numerous
civil class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against its
subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney, and other corporate and individual
defendants in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
The allegations in each of the civil lawsuits track the factual
assertions in the criminal indictment and generally allege that
Pratt & Whitney and the other defendants agreed to restrict the
hiring and recruiting of certain engineers and skilled laborers in
a manner that violated federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in each of the civil lawsuits seek to represent
different purported classes of engineers and skilled laborers
employed by Pratt & Whitney and other supplier-defendants since
2011. Plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits seek treble damages in an
undetermined amount, plus attorneys' fees and costs of suit. All of
the lawsuits have been consolidated, and a single amended class
action complaint was filed.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is a global premier systems
provider of high technology products and services to the aerospace
and defense industries based in Virginia.
PROPETRO HOLDING: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Logan v. PROPETRO HOLDING
CORP., et al., Case No. 7:19-cv-00217 (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
David Counts entered an order that the Defendants are authorized to
file under seal the unredacted opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification
The suit involves securities fraud.
ProPetro is a Midland, Texas-based oilfield services company
providing pressure pumping and other complementary services.[CC]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Retirees' Suit Over Pension Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that it is
facing a complaint filed by several former employees asserting
claims for breach of the equity compensation plans.
On August 12, 2020, several former employees of its affiliate
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) or its subsidiaries filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the Company, Otis, Carrier,
the former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members
of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al.
v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.).
The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the
separation of UTC into three independent, publicly-traded companies
on April 3, 2020. The complaint also claimed that the defendants
are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and also
asserted claims under certain provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for
breach of the equity compensation plans against the Company, Otis
and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is a global premier systems
provider of high technology products and services to the aerospace
and defense industries based in Virginia.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, CA: Parties Stipulate Class Status in Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENYON NORBERT, TROY
MCALLISTER, MARSHALL HARRIS, ARMANDO CARLOS, MONTRAIL BRACKEN,
MICHAEL BROWN AND JOSE POOT, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES INDIVIDUALLY
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AS A CLASS AND SUBCLASS, v. SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSY; CHIEF DEPUTY
SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO; CAPTAIN JASON JACKSON, CAPTAIN MCCONNELL AND
JOHN AND JANE DOES, NOS. 1 -50, Case No. 3:19-cv-02724-SK (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties stipulate to class certification under Rules
23(a) and Rules 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
an action including the following defined Classes and Subclasses:
(a) Outdoor Class
"All inmates who are pretrial detainees and have been
incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail 3 (formerly
known as County Jail 5) located in San Bruno, 14
California, at any point during the time period May 20,
2017 to the present, and who do not have outdoor access
as part of their incarceration at San Francisco County
Jail 3;" and
(b) Confinement Class
"All inmates who are pretrial detainees and have been
incarcerated in County Jail 3 (formerly known as County
Jail 5) located in San Bruno, California, at any point
during the time period from May 20, 2017 to the present,
and who have fewer than one hour per 24 hour period of
time out of their cells as part of their incarceration at
San Francisco County Jail 3;"
(1) Confinement Subclass 1
"All inmates in the Confinement Class who are
classified by the San Francisco County Sheriff’s
Office in general population housing;" and
(2) Confinement Subclass
"All inmates in the Confinement Class who are
classified by the San Francisco County Sheriff's
Office in administrative segregation housing."
The Plaintiffs also stipulate the following:
-- The Plaintiffs MONTRAIL BRACKENS and TROY MCALLISTER and
JOSE POOT will serve as representatives of the Outdoor
Class and the Confinement Class.
-- The Plaintiff TROY MCALISTER will serve as a representative
of the Confinement Subclass 1.
-- The Plaintiffs MONTRAIL BRACKENS will serve as a
representative of the Confinement Subclass 2.
-- The Plaintiff JOSE POOT will serve as a representative of
the Confinement Subclass 1 and 2.
-- The parties will separately enter a stipulation for named
Plaintiffs KENYON NORBERT, MARSHALL HARRIS, ARMANDO CARLOS,
and MICHAEL BROWN to dismiss their claims against
Defendants without prejudice. The dismiss will change the
status of named Plaintiffs KENYON NORBERT, MARSHALL HARRIS,
ARMANDO CARLOS, and MICHAEL BROWN from being named
plaintiffs but they will remain members of the class.
The San Francisco Sheriff's Office, officially the City and County
of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, is the sheriff's office for the
City and County of San Francisco. The current sheriff is Paul
Miyamoto. The department has 850 deputized personnel and support
staff.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OOEevz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yolanda Huang, Esq.
LAW OFC YOLANDA HUANG
PO Box 5475
Berkeley, CA 94705-0475
Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Chiu, Esq.
CITY ATTORNEY
Meredith B. Osborn, Esq.
CHIEF TRIAL ATTORNEY
Sabrina M. Berdux, Esq.
Kaitlyn Murphy, Esq.
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3929 [Berdux]
Telephone: (415) 554-3867 [Murphy]
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: sabrina.m.berdux@sfcityatty.org
kaitlyn.murphy@sfcityatty.org
SCOPA6 LLC: Underpays Pizzeria Staff, Maldonado Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILSON MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOPA6, LLC d/b/a/ GINO'S OF
COMMACK, 7 STROMBOLI, LLC d/b/a GINO'S OF NESCONSET, GIUSEPPE G.
LICATA a/k/a JOSEPH G. LICATA, MICHAEL LICATA, and NICHOLAS DI
NARDO, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04328 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay spread of hours pay, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
furnish wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from July 2021 until the end of September 2021.
Scopa6, LLC, doing business as Gino's of Commack, is a pizzeria
owner and operator, located at 5990 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, New
York.
7 Stromboli, LLC, doing business as Gino's of Nesconset, is a
pizzeria owner and operator, located at 377 Court House Road,
Franklin Square, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (718) 799-9111
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
SCORES HOLDING: Federal Court Issues Discontinuance of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that on March
26, 2021, a Stipulation of Discontinuance was ordered by the
Federal Court, discontinuing all claims against the company.
On October 8, 2018, the company was served with a Summons and
Complaint in the action entitled "Luisa Santos de Oliveira v.
Scores Holding Company, Inc., Club Azure, LLC, Robert Gans, Mark S.
Yackow, Howard Rosenbluth," Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the
United States District Court of the Southern District.
Plaintiff claims that the defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violated
the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law (NYLL), violated the Spread of Hours Wage
Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor, violated the Notice
and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL, violated the wage
statement provisions of the NYLL, recovery of equipment costs in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, and unlawful deductions from tips
in violation of the NYLL.
Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants. The company has submitted an Answer to
Plaintiff's claims and the case is currently in the discovery
phase.
The case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. There was a
conference on March 2, 2021 and a Scheduling Order was entered. On
March 26, 2021, a Stipulation of Discontinuance was so-ordered by
the Federal Court, discontinuing all claims against the company.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. is into licensing the "Scores"
trademarks and other intellectual property to fine gentlemen's
nightclubs with adult entertainment based in New York.
SMITHFIELD DIRECT: Judgment Entered on Kane Class Action Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN KANE, on behalf of himself and other
similarly-situated employees, Plaintiff, v. SMITHFIELD DIRECT, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, CV No. 21-4832 PA (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California entered judgment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
between named Plaintiff Kane and Defendant Smithfield; the Court's
Dec. 29, 2021 Minute Order granting the Motion for Preliminary
Approval; and the Court's July 19, 2022 Minute Order granting the
Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion
for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, Class Representative Service
Payment, and Administration Expenses.
All terms and provisions of the Settlement are ordered to be
consummated subject to the Effective Date expiration periods and
other conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Anderson confirms (i) the law firms of Cohelan Khoury &
Singer and Davtyan Law Firm, Inc., as the Class Counsel, and (ii)
Plaintiff Kane as the Class Representative.
He grants final approval to and orders, following the Effective
Date expiration period and other conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, payment of amounts in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Anderson authorizes payment of (i) attorneys' fees from the
common fund to Class Counsel in the amount of $87,500 (constituting
25% of the common fund); (ii) litigation expenses from the common
fund to Class Counsel in the amount of $16,293.78; (iii) an
incentive award to the Named Plaintiff from the common fund in the
amount of $5,000; and (iv) administrative costs for CPT Group, Inc.
from the common fund in the amount of $6,500.
He finds and determines the PAGA Payment -- in the amount of
$11,250 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency representing the 75% share of the $15,000 for
civil penalties is fair, adequate and reasonable, and $3,750
representing 25% share of the $15,000 civil penalties to be paid to
eligible PAGA Members -- are fair and reasonable, and orders that
these amounts be paid in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the
Settlement.
The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as
provided by the Settlement Agreement and the Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdzzjf9b from Leagle.com.
SPLUNK INC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE SPLUNK INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:20-cv-08600-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. Certifying a class of investors defined as:
"All persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Splunk Inc. from May 21, 2020 until December 2, 2020,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are:
(1) Defendants and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns;
(2) any current or former officers or directors of Splunk;
(3) the immediate family members of any Defendant or any
current or former officer or director of Splunk; and
(4) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or
owned or controlled during the Class Period.
2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. Approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of Lead Counsel
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class
Counsel.
This action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Splunk, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.
Splunk is an American software company based in San Francisco,
California, that produces software for searching, monitoring, and
analyzing machine-generated data via a Web-style interface.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDOrjZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
Lauren M. Cruz, Esq.
Caitlin C. Bozman, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com
caitlin.bozman@blbglaw.com
- and -
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam D. Hollander, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com
adam.hollander@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
STANTEC CONSULTING: Gotta, et al., Seek to Certify Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Gotta and Michael
De Sena, individually and on behalf of the Stantec 401(k) Plan, v.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; The Board of Directors of
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc. Fiduciary Investment Committee; and John Does 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-01865-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying all of the Plaintiffs' claims as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or alternatively under
Rule 23(b)(2), on behalf of:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 and the
present;"
2. appointing as class representatives Plaintiffs Samantha
Gotta and Michael De Sena; and
3. appointing as co-lead class counsel Edelson Lechtzin LLP
and McKay Law LLC.
The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants breached Employee Retirement
Income Security Act's (ERISA) strict fiduciary duties standard by
causing the Plan to select and retain underperforming and
excessively expensive investment options rather than prudent
investments for the Plan's investment menu and failing to monitor
and control excessive fees paid by all Plan participants.
Stantec provides architectural, engineering, and environmental
services. The Company offers interior design, and power
engineering.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OJMOMc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 681-7000
Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN, LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
elechtzin@edelson-law.com
STEMILT AG: Garcia, et al., Seek to Clarify Certified FLCA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA,
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, JOSE RODRIGUEZ LLERENAS, FRANCISCO MUÑOZ
MEDRANO, SANDRO VARGAS LEVYA, ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ MONROY, and VICTOR
FRANCISCO PADILLA PLASCENCIA, as individuals and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00254-TOR (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order clarifying which FLCA claims it certified in its
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Second Motion for Class
Certification, specifically paragraph 3 on pages 21-22.
On page 11 of the Order, the Court states, "the Court will certify
the [two FLCA] claims under RCW 19.30.110(2) and (7)(h) for the
proposed class and for the previously-certified class [by Judge
Mendoza]."
However, later in the Order, as to Judge Mendoza's
previously-certified class, the FLCA Disclosure Subclass, the Court
only certified one FLCA claim concerning Stemilt's requirement to
disclose the names and addresses of the owners of all operations,
under RCW 19.30110(7)(h), but omitted the second FLCA claim
concerning Stemilt's requirement to disclose its bond and the
existence and amount of any claims against the bond, under RCW
19.30.110(2).
On Friday, July 15th, the Plaintiffs' counsel approached Stemilt by
email regarding submitting a joint motion to correct the Order.
In a telephonic conference later the same day, Stemilt's counsel
requested an email outlining the proposed clarification.
Plaintiffs' 21 counsel sent an email with the proposed language,
and Stemilt's counsel responded
While the proposals differed slightly, the parties agreed that this
Court's Order only certified one FLCA claim for the "FLCA
Disclosure Subclass" despite containing clear language showing that
the Court intended to certify two FLCA claims.
On Monday, July 18th, due to the parties' slightly differing
proposals, the Plaintiffs' counsel offered to draft a joint motion
to briefly outline those differences.
-- Plaintiffs' Proposed Clarification
The Plaintiffs understand the Court's most recent Order as
certifying four FLCA claims -- two identical claims for each
FLCA class -- in addition to the one FLCA claim previously
certified by Judge Mendoza. To be clear, Plaintiffs believe
that this Court found that Judge Mendoza certified one FLCA
claim for the FLCA Disclosure Subclass - whether Stemilt
provided a fully-compliant FLCA disclosure under RCW
19.30.110(7). 1 This Court then intended to certify two
additional FLCA claims for both FLCA classes under RCW
19.30.110(2) and RCW 2 19.30.110(7)(h).
To accomplish the above clarification, Plaintiffs respectfully
propose the following changes to paragraph 3 on pages 21-22 of ECF
No. 290:
"Because the Court did not define the claim associated with
the "FLCA Disclosure Subclass" certified in ECF No. 193, the
Court hereby certifies the same two FLCA claims that the
Court certified for the "FLCA Disclosure Class" listed in
section 2 above."
Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing farm management services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SglA2v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maria Diana Garcia, Esq.
Joachim Morrison, Esq.
Amy L. Crewdson, Esq.
Andres E. Munoz, Esq.
Virginia Halden, Esq.
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
7103 W. Clearwater Avenue, Suite C
Kennewick, WA 99336
Telephone: (509) 374-9855
E-mail: diana.garcia@columbialegal.org
joe.morrison@columbialegal.org
amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org
andres.munoz@columbialegal.org
virginia.halden@columbialegal.org
- and -
Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
SUNCORP GROUP: Settles Suit for $33-Mil., Sept. 22 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Williamson, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
Suncorp is set to pay $33 million to settle a class action brought
by superannuation members in 2019 over conflicted remuneration paid
to financial advisers.
The class action was brought by William Roberts Lawyers in June
2019 on behalf of Suncorp Super Fund members, alleging Suncorp
Super executed agreements to entrench fees or commissions to advice
licensees that would otherwise have been unlawful or unenforceable
under the Future of Financial Advice reforms which came into effect
1 July 2013.
The plaintiff, Kerry Michael Quirk, and each of the group members
were said to have suffered a loss or damage in the form of the
excess fees paid to fund the conflicted remuneration, which thereby
reduced their super balances.
The defendants in the matter are the trustee Suncorp Portfolio
Services and two former directors, Geoff Summerhayes and Sean
Carroll, who were accused of breaching their duties.
To settle the matter, Suncorp has agreed to pay $33 million
inclusive of costs and interest, on the basis that there is no
admission of liability by Suncorp Portfolio Services or Summerhayes
and Carroll, documents show.
Of this, about $19 million will be deducted to cover costs incurred
over the course of the class action. This includes more than $14
million to be paid to the litigation funder to cover action costs
and in remuneration, after-the-event insurance of $1.3 million,
$650,000 to KordaMentha to administer the settlement distribution
scheme and $12,000 to be paid to Quirk for his time in acting as
the group's representative. It also includes as-yet unpaid legal
fees for William Roberts Lawyers.
The settlement amount must still be approved by the court, with an
approval hearing scheduled for September 22. If it is not approved,
the case will continue.
Anyone who was or remains a member of a Suncorp superannuation fund
can still register to be part of the class action group if they
think their super account may have been impacted. They have until
August 31 to do so.
Suncorp Portfolio Services was acquired by LGIAsuper in April 2021
and now forms part of the Brighter Super Group. The matters subject
to the class action occurred while the business was part of Suncorp
Group, between 1 July 2013 and 21 June 2019. [GN]
TARGET CORPORATION: Torres Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALICIA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01017, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July
22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05084-JLS-PVC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Business and Professions
Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act including
unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment,
discrimination and retaliation, and wrongful termination.
Target Corporation is an American big box department store chain
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Matthew Riley, Esq.
Alberto Corona, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B. Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 699-2700
Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
alberto.corona@us.dlapiper.com
TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of people who purchased securities from
TerraForm Labs Ptd. Ltd., Solana Labs, Inc., and Celsius Network
LLC, and the companies' respective Co-Defendants. Those who
purchased securities have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
TerraForm Labs Ptd. Ltd. and Co-Defendants
advertisement
Class Period: May 20, 2021 - May 25, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2022
TerraForm Labs Ptd. Ltd. ("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.
On May 25, 2022, the price of the UST hit a low of $0.07 per token,
down from $1.00, which it has not been able to recover. The price
of UST and LUNA tokens dropped by 91% and 99.7%, respectively,
between May 7, 2022 and May 12, 2022 and has not recovered.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated provision 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 not misleading. The complaint alleges that TFL
and the 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 provision 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.
For more information on the TerraForm Labs class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TERRA
Solana Labs, Inc. and Co-Defendants
Class Period: March 24, 2020 - Present
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 6, 2022
According to the lawsuit, Solana issues securities that are
required to be, but are not, registered with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
promoted SOL securities (SOL tokens) and sold them to investors,
who has suffered losses from purchasing SOL securities.
For more information on the Solana Labs class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SOL-TOKENS
Celsius Network LLC and Co-Defendants
Class Period: February 9, 2018 - July 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2022
advertisement
Celsius is a financial services company that generates revenue
through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, the sale of
its unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary
trading.
The price of CEL Tokens went from a high of $7.73 on June 3, 2021,
to a low of $0.28 just over a year later on June 12, 2021, in the
wake of the June Crisis and Celsius freezing its investors
accounts.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct
that Celsius intended to and did deceive retail investors and
thereby caused them to purchase Celsius Financial Products 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 further alleges that Celsius and its affiliates,
along with the Individual Defendants, also violated provisions of
the Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities without
registering it. The complaint alleges that Celsius and Individual
Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by also
participating in Celsius' failure to register the Celsius Financial
Products. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
provisions of the New Jersey Common Law by possessing the monetary
value of Celsius Financial Products of inflated value which
rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the Class.
For more information on the Celsius Network class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CELSIUS
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MELISSA MORRISON, KELLIE VALENCIA, and KARIE KUEHL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEVA
BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC., f/k/a Teva Global
Respiratory Research, LLC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ALZA
CORPORATION; JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a Johnson &
Johnson Research & Development, LLC; ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL,
LLC; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/k/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; JANSSEN
ORTHO LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; DR. C. LOWELL PARSONS, MD, an
individual; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 37-2022-00023174-CU-MT-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on July 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01074-GPC-MSB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek punitive and compensatory damages on behalf of
thousands of patients who are or previously were injured by taking
Elmiron, a prescription medication manufactured by certain of the
named Defendants, without being told of the risk of serious and
potentially irreversible vision damage.
Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., formerly known as
Teva Global Respiratory Research, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business in New Jersey.
Alza Corporation was a pharmaceutical and medical systems company
based in California.
Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as Johnson &
Johnson Research & Development, LLC, is a research and development
firm, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business in New Jersey.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Janssen Ortho LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business in Switzerland.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew K. Ashby, Esq.
Julia E. Romano, Esq.
Stacy L. Foster, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4355
Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
E-mail: mashby@kslaw.com
jromano@kslaw.com
stacy.foster@kslaw.com
TOUR RESOURCE: Court Junks Delcavo's Bid for Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DELCAVO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TOUR RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02137-JWL (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order:
1. granting in part and denyng in part the defendant's motion
for summary judgment:
-- the motion is granted as unopposed with respect to the
plaintiff's common-law claims for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of contract, and defendant is
awarded judgment on those claims; the motion is
otherwise denied.
2. denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
The Court said, "The plaintiff has not established that he is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law at this stage on his
Section 50-627 claim. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to
judgment because he received no material benefit, defendant acted
deceptively, and he suffered from an unequal bargaining position.
The KCPA does make the issue of unconscionability one of law for
the Court, but the Court will make that determination after the
facts have been established at trial. At this time, the Court
cannot conclude as a matter of law that participants received no
material benefit for their deposits, as, for instance, the deposit
allowed each participant to reserve one of a limited number of
places on the tour, and some participants received vouchers in
addition to their refunds of amounts paid above the initial
deposits. Nor can the Court conclude as a matter of law that
defendant deceptively failed to disclose material facts to
plaintiff. Those issues present questions of fact to be determined
at trial. The Court therefore denies plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment."
The Defendant provides travel services for groups, and in 2019 a
music group, the Bach Festival Society, arranged for defendant to
provide services for a June 2020 tour to Italy.
The Plaintiff's son was a member of the group, and in November 2019
plaintiff paid defendant $400 as an initial deposit for the trip.
In March 2020, when travel to Italy became impossible in light of
the COVID-19 pandemic, Bach's trip and plaintiff's booking were
canceled.
Payments by the plaintiff and other participants in the Bach trip
were refunded by defendant with the exception that defendant
retained $400 as a cancellation fee for each participant.
In March 2021, plaintiff filed this putative class action, in which
plaintiff asserted common-law claims for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of contract, and claims under the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. §§ 50-626, -627.
In November 2021, the Court granted in part plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and it certified a class, limited to the
participants in the Bach tour, for the assertion of all of
plaintiff's claims except his claims under the KCPA based on
affirmative misrepresentations by defendant. In addition, defendant
has asserted a counterclaim for defamation, based on its allegation
that plaintiff falsely accused it of having canceled the Bach tour,
although that counterclaim is not the subject of the present
motions.
TRC designs and produces boutique tours for choirs, orchestras,
bands, academic tours & study abroad.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bm5VhF at no extra charge.[CC]
TRAVEL RESORTS: Faces McCoy Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00583-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 26, 2022) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In attempt to promote its business, the Defendant bombarded the
Plaintiff with dozens of text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 6099 over the past year, including on
May 18, 2022. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's telephone number has
been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since December 11, 2004.
The Defendant allegedly failed to obtain the Plaintiff's prior
express written consent to receive such unsolicited text messages,
says the suit.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused the Plaintiff actual harm in the form of
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience, and disruption to
his daily life. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint for
himself and all other similarly situated individuals seeking for an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text
messaging activity, as well as actual and statutory damages, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Travel Resorts of America, Inc. is a travel company that owns and
operates camping resorts throughout the Eastern and Midwest United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
Jacob M. Morse, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: jwilliams@milberg.com
jmorse@milberg.com
- and –
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
TURKEY HILL: Summers Files Suit Over General Managers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TURKEY HILL MINIT MARKETS, LLC, CUMBERLAND
FARMS, INC., and E.G. AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-02934 (E.D. Penn., July 26, 2022) brings this class and
collective action complaint alleging the Defendants of violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act of 1968.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as salaried
General Manager, claims that although she and other similarly
situated General Managers often work more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated General
Managers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs,
expenses and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Turkey Hill owns and operates approximately 250 convenience stores
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, d/b/a Turkey Hill Minit
Markets, LLC. Cumberland Farms, which is a wholly owned subsidiary
of EG America incorporated in the State of Delaware as a limited
liability company, owns and operates its own convenience store
brand, Cumberland Farms. EG America, which also operates a
convenience store retailer, is the parent company of both Turkey
Hill and Cumberland Farms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel: (717) 238-5707
Fax: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
TWITTER INC: Delaware Court OKs Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2022, that the court granted a stipulation
and proposed order to voluntarily dismiss the class action with
prejudice as to the plaintiff.
On May 6, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed by a
putative stockholder against the company, its directors and Mr.
Musk alleging that Mr. Musk reached an "agreement, arrangement or
understanding," as those terms are defined in Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, with certain of its other
stockholders prior to our Board's approval of the Merger, pursuant
to which the shares owned by these other stockholders would be
voted in favor of the merger, thereby triggering Section 203's
requirement that at least 66 and 2/3 percent of our outstanding
stock unaffiliated with Mr. Musk vote in favor of the merger.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order declaring that
the merger is subject to Section 203's supermajority voting
requirement and (2) a finding that the members of our Board
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger
Agreement without providing for a supermajority stockholder vote
contemplated by Section 203. The company disputes the Delaware
complaint's allegations, including the allegation that Section
203's supermajority voting requirement applies to the Merger.
On June 27, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
stipulation and proposed order filed by the parties to the
litigation to voluntarily dismiss the complaint, including the
causes of action asserted therein, with prejudice as to the
plaintiff only.
Twitter is a social network company based in California.
TWITTER INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2022, that a class action amended complaint
was filed against the company and Elon Musk asserting causes of
action under Delaware law and unjust enrichment.
On May 25, 2022, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by a
putative company stockholder against Mr. Musk and the company.
The complaint asserted causes of action against Mr. Musk under the
California Corporation Code for alleged market manipulation,
disclosure of materially misleading public statements, insider
trading, and unjust enrichment in connection with Mr. Musk's
acquisition of company shares and certain public statements he has
made regarding the Merger Agreement.
The complaint also sought a declaration that Mr. Musk is not
entitled to put the Merger Agreement on hold pending investigation
of false or spam accounts on Twitter's platform and that the
Company has an obligation to investigate Mr. Musk's insider
trading. On July 1, 2022, the California Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.
The amended complaint no longer asserts causes of action under the
California Corporation Code or a declaration that the company has
an obligation to investigate Mr. Musk's alleged insider trading.
The amended complaint now asserts causes of action under Delaware
law against Mr. Musk, Parent and Acquisition Sub for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by Jack
Dorsey and Egon Durban in connection with the Merger Agreement and
against Mr. Musk for unjust enrichment.
The amended complaint also adds certain new allegations regarding
events that transpired since the original complaint was filed. The
amended complaint still seeks a declaration that Mr. Musk is not
entitled to put the Merger Agreement on hold pending investigation
of false or spam accounts. The lawsuit does not seek damages from
the company.
Twitter is a social network company based in California.
TWITTER INC: Settlement of Shareholder Suit for Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2022, that the consolidated class action
settlement is subject to approval by the court.
Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the company and the company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.
The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California and were scheduled
for trial on September 20, 2021. In September 2021, prior to the
start of the trial, the Company negotiated and entered into a
binding agreement to settle the shareholder class action lawsuit.
The proposed class action settlement resolves all claims asserted
against the company and the other named defendants in the
shareholder class action lawsuit without any liability or
wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to the company. Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, the company paid the
settlement amount of $809.5 million from cash on hand in the fourth
quarter of 2021. The settlement agreement is subject to final
approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Twitter is a social network company based in California.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in Boston Retirement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06361-RS
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
In this putative securities class action arising from the initial
public offering for Uber, Boston Retirement System and four
individual plaintiffs bring a motion for class certification and
seek appointment as class representatives. The Defendants oppose
the motion, arguing that BRS and the other named plaintiffs do not
satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) and 23(a)(4), and that the predominance
and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are not met.
Uber is a transportation company which provides on demand rides and
food delivery. On May 10, 2019, it conducted its IPO, in which it
sold 180,000,000 shares of common stock to the public. The IPO was
priced at $45 per share and generated nearly $8 billion in proceeds
for Uber. The IPO was conducted pursuant to several documents filed
by the Defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
including an April 11, 2019 Registration Statement on Form S-1,
which, after amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on May 5,
2019.
BRS purchased Uber's common stock in the IPO, and from an
underwriter of the IPO, pursuant to the offering documents,
including the RS. At the time BRS purchased this stock, only Uber
shares offered in the IPO were available in the market. Uber's
share price subsequently declined from $45 to an all-time low of
$25.99 on Nov. 14, 2019. The action was brought, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77I(a)(2), and 77o. In January 2020, BRS
was appointed the Lead Plaintiff. The named defendants are Uber,
several of its past and present executives, and the underwriters of
its IPO.
On Aug. 7, 2020, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, as
the Plaintiff had adequately stated claims that they omitted
material facts concerning the legality (or lack thereof) of Uber's
business model, its passenger safety record, and its financial
condition. On May 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint, adding four new proposed class
representatives.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the claims of these new plaintiffs,
and the motion was denied on Oct. 1, 2021. The order denying the
motion to dismiss claims brought by the new plaintiffs noted,
however, "the addition of named plaintiffs in the Second Amended
Complaint does not automatically morph them into additional
court-designated Lead Plaintiffs" and that the Court would
"consider any concerns about the involvement of too many law firms,
and the related concern of overgeneration of fees, at the class
certification stage."
On October 29, 2021, BRS filed the motion for class certification.
It seeks certification of the following proposed class: All persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber's publicly
traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents for Uber's IPO, and who were damaged thereby. BRS and
four of the named plaintiffs added to the Second Amended Complaint
-- David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto, and Irving S. and Judith
Braun -- seek appointment as Class Representatives.
The Defendants oppose the motion. They challenge whether the
Plaintiff has met the adequacy and typicality requirements of Rule
23(a) and the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).
The Defendants argue that issues concerning each Plaintiff's actual
knowledge of allegedly omitted information preclude it from
satisfying the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).
However, Judge Seeborg holds that issues of actual knowledge do not
defeat class certification. The Defendants have presented evidence
in the form of deposition testimony from various employees of BRS'
investment manager, ZCI, showing that some employees had knowledge
of pieces of information related to the alleged omissions. Separate
and apart from issues of whether knowledge of individual ZCI
employees may be imputed to BRS, rather than only ZCI's knowledge,
the awareness of snippets of information do not defeat
predominance. Similarly, each of the pieces of knowledge identified
by the Defendants go to the awareness of a general issue, not the
magnitude of the problems alleged in the SAC.
The Defendants also argue that individual issues of actual
knowledge give rise to individualized issues of causation which
will predominate over common issues and create conflicts within the
class, and that Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) prohibits
class-wide treatment of the causation issues.
Given that they have failed to establish that actual knowledge will
preclude class certification, these issues similarly do not
preclude certification, Judge Seeborg finds. He states, they have
not established that individualized issues with negative causation
will predominate over common questions, and "the causes of the Uber
stock declines are factual questions suitable for resolution on a
class-wide basis." Further, Comcast does not prevent certification.
The Defendant points to no securities class action in which the
concerns from Comcast prevented certification
The Defendants argue that the proposed class representatives are
not adequate because they are not controlling, arguing that "Lead
Plaintiff BRS has shown an inability (or unwillingness) to control
its lawyers or legal costs" and citing to the proposed
participation of 10 law firms on the Plaintiff. They similarly
argue that the proposed individual class representatives "have
abdicated responsibility for running the case to the counsel."
Judge Seeborg holds that the Plaintiffs present some affirmative
evidence that they are familiar with the case, the claims within
it, and the role of a class representative. As for the concern
about the involvement of numerous law firms, only one firm --
Labaton Sucharow -- seeks to serve as the Lead Counsel. Labaton
Sucharow has demonstrated experience in litigating securities class
actions and has an incentive to avoid duplication of efforts
amongst the firms it will draw on for support; indeed, any payments
to other firms will be from attorney's fees due to Labaton
Sucharow, should it be awarded any fees. In short, the Plaintiff
has established that the proposed class representatives and the
Lead Counsel are adequate.
BRS, David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto, and Irving S. and Judith
Braun are appointed as the class representatives, and Labaton
Sucharow is appointed as the class counsel.
Lastly, the Defendants argue that the proposed class
representatives are not typical because they are subject to unique
actual knowledge defenses, and that this is a basis to deny
certification even if the Court rejects the similar arguments
concerning predominance and superiority. This argument is rejected
for the same reasons as the predominance and superiority
requirements, Judge Seeborg finds. He says, the actual knowledge
defenses as to the proposed class representatives are not so unique
to these plaintiffs that they defeat typicality. Typicality is
therefore satisfied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4y8njx8w from Leagle.com.
UNISYS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brunswick Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN BRUNSWICK, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02906 (E.D.P.A., July 25, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Brunswick was employed by the Defendant as customer
service representative.
UNISYS CORPORATION provides information technology consulting
services. The Company offers data analytics, mobility, network,
security, and outsourcing services. Unisys serves commercial,
financial services, and government sectors globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
UNITED STATES: Calixto Seeks More Time to File Reply to Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. at., Case No. (), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to
August 9, 2022, for the Defendants to file their certified
administrative record index and for Plaintiffs to file their reply
to the Defendants' opposition to class certification.
These deadlines have been extended by the Court several times
previously in order to accommodate the Parties' discussions
regarding a possible resolution of this matter as well as the
Parties' discussions regarding next steps for continuing the
litigation of this matter. Defendants' certified administrative
record index and Plaintiffs' reply currently are due on July 25,
2022, the Parties say.
The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cQlfU4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
Bernard J. Garbutt III, Esq.
Taylor C. Day, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: 202.739.5313
Facsimile: 202.739.3001
E-mail: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com
bernard.garbutt@morganlewis.com
taylor.day@morganlewis.com
megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
CHIEF, CIVIL DIVISION
John Haberland, Esq.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2574
E-mail: john.haberland@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Joint Bid to Partially Amend Scheduling Order Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Center For Leadership And
Justice, et al., v. United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01728-SAL (D. Conn.), the
Parties jointly move the Court to amend the Scheduling Order, by
partially extending the existing deadline for remaining fact
discovery by 60 days.
The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, the City of
Hartford, and Imagineers, LLC do not object to this motion.
The parties agree that during the past ten weeks they have
continued to work on their discovery obligations and have been
productively engaged in conversations regarding a possible
settlement, which may moot the need to resolve the one outstanding
fact discovery dispute (via motions practice or otherwise).
The parties have resolved all their discovery disputes during this
time period except for one -- the subpoena HUD previously served on
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Open Communities Alliance, which is relevant
to class certification. Additional time is needed for the
resolution of the dispute regarding this subpoena, which would help
avoid the potential need for discovery motions practice and would
help to facilitate a potential resolution of the case.
The parties agree that, except by Court order, no further written
discovery requests related to fact discovery shall be propounded,
and no further fact witness deposition notices shall be propounded
as to any party. Regarding the length of time requested, it is
anticipated that an additional sixty days will be a sufficient
amount of time in which to resolve the subpoena dispute, moot it
through settlement of the case, or determine whether settlement
discussions have progressed enough to warrant a further extension
request regarding the subpoena dispute.
The parties request an extension of sixty days to September 23,
2022, for the completion of outstanding fact discovery, that being
the subpoena to OCA. All other deadlines established by this
Court's latest Scheduling Order, will remain in effect.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is
one of the executive departments of the U.S. federal government.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpS0hn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vanessa Roberts Avery, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Natalie N. Elicker, Esq.
William Brown, Esq.
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS
157 Church Street, 25th Floor
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 821-3700
Facsimile: (203) 773-5373
E-mail: Natalie.Elicker@usdoj.gov
William.Brown2@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Property Damages Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DUARTE, BETSY DUARTE
and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians JUAN DUARTE and
BETSY DUARTE, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, v. UNITED STATES METALS REFINING COMPANY, ET AL., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01624-EP-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action on
behalf of the following Property Damages Class:
"Current residents of New Jersey who, on or after the date of
the filing of their Complaint, own or owned any real property
identified as Residential Property located within the area
identified on the attached map."
The Class Area is generally bounded by Carteret Street,
Rosewood Lane, Jackson Ave., Varga Drive and Monroe Ave. to
the West; Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway to the North and
East; and Middlesex Ave. and Prologis Way to the South."
The Class includes Residential Properties located on both
sides of the boundary streets contained in the class
definition.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers, directors,
agents, employees and members of their immediate families;
and the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned,
their staff, and the members of their immediate families.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Btx8d1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven J. German, Esq.
GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
Steven J. German, Esq.
Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 704-2020
- and -
Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
Jonathan Nace, Esq.
NIDEL & NACE PLLC
One Church Street, Suite 802
Rockville, MD 20850
- and -
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Richard D. Meadow, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Christopher L. Gadoury, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
6810 FM 1960 West
Houston, TX 77069
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
- and -
John M. Vlasac, Jr., Esq.
Boris Shmaruk, Esq.
VLASAC & SHMARUK LLC
467 Middlesex Avenue
Metuchen, NJ 08840
Telephone: (732) 649-6405
UNITED STATES: Tanner-Brown Seeks Amendment of Court Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, et
al., DEBRA HAALAND Secretary of the Interior, Case No.
1:21-cv-00565-RC (D.C.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to move the
Court to alter or amend under Fed R. Civ P. 59(e) the Court's
recent order dismissing this action.
Ms. Tanner-Brown, in her capacity as plaintiff and putative class
representative of the class of minor Freedmen owed an accounting
under the Act of May 27, 1908, the Court says.
The Plaintiff did not previously file a motion for class
certification within the time required under local rule due to the
expectation a motion to dismiss would be filed by the United
States, which if granted, would render the motion to certify a
class moot, the Court adds.
A copy of the Court's order Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q2nCS4 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
341 S. Third St., Suite 10
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224 6528
Facsimile: (614) 224 6529
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
UNITY SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Unity Software Inc.
("Unity" or the "Company") of a class action securities lawsuit.
The lawsuit on behalf of Unity investors has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired
certain Unity Software Inc. securities between March 5, 2021 and
May 10, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of our team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/unity-software-loss-submission-form?prid=30229&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Cannot view this video? Visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-elWL_fpsfk
Unity Software Inc. NEWS - U NEWS
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) deficiencies in Unity's
product platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine
learning technology; (ii) the foregoing was likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's revenues; (iii)
accordingly, Unity had overstated the Company's commercial and/or
financial prospects for 2022; (iv) as a result, the Company was
likely to have to reduce its fiscal 2022 guidance; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Unity
during the relevant timeframe, you have until September 6, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/unity-software-loss-submission-form?prid=30229&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Track Coach Sexual Abuse Class Suit Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Stevens, writing for The Daily Texan, reports that a lawsuit
claiming a former University of Texas track coach sexually abused
multiple athletes was dropped on July 14, according to court
documents.
In March 2020, three former UT track athletes brought a class
action lawsuit against John Rembao, a former high jump coach from
1997-2001. The plaintiffs, Erin Aldrich, Jessica Johnson and Londa
Bevins, said Rembao sexually abused and harassed them between 1997
and 2000.
In the court filing, the parties agreed to dismiss the case. The
parties resolved the matter, according to the filing, though it
provided no information as to the terms of the dismissal.
Lynn Ellenberger, a lawyer for the athletes, said in an email that
a settlement had been reached but that the plaintiffs could not
reveal its terms.
Lawyers for Rembao did not return requests for comment on the
circumstances surrounding the dismissal.
In addition to Rembao, the lawsuit named the NCAA and the NCAA
Board of Governors as defendants, alleging that the organizations
failed to protect athletes. The claims against the NCAA and its
board of governors were handled in an Indiana district court, the
location of the NCAA headquarters, and were dismissed in 2021 due
to the statute of limitations being reached. [GN]
VANGUARD SOAP: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Faison Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS FAISON, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VANGUARD SOAP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02481-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., July 26, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee, asserts these claims:
-- The Defendant has a policy of manipulating his and other
similarly situated hourly-paid employees overtime compensation from
their pay;
-- The Defendant did not compensate them for the time they
spent performing “off the clock” work prior to the start of
their respective shifts; and
-- The Defendant failed to include the non-discretionary
bonuses when calculating their overtime time pay.
As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant willfully failed to properly pay their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the FLSA, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other
similarly situated hourly-paid employees to recover all unpaid
overtime wages at the applicable overtime rate of pay against the
Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and all
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
Vanguard Soap, LLC manufactures cleaning and personal care products
at its facility located in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole Buckley v. Vascular
Associates of Michigan, PC, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-12539-JEL-KGA
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's opposed motion for
conditional certification of a collective action.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JeW6i6 at no extra charge.[CC]
VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Dismissal of Entire Cannavan Action Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ALLEN CANNAVAN, on
13 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY
OF VENTURA, VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF BILL AYUB, CECIL ARGUE, PATRICIA
SALAS, ERIC DOWD, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-10012-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order granting the parties' request to extend the
date of dismissal of of entire action by 60 days.
The June 24, 2022 deadline is continued to August 23, 2022, to
allow the parties additional time for:
(1) Plaintiff to review and sign the settlement agreement;
and,
(2) the parties to consummate the settlement and file a
stipulation to vacate the provisional class certification
and request dismissal of the entire action, with
prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41.
Ventura County is a county in the southern part of the U.S. state
of California.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cFJ1Sz at no extra charge.[CC]
VIVINT SOLAR: Trial in Dekker Suit Pushed Back
----------------------------------------------
In the case, GERRIE DEKKER, Plaintiff, v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-07918 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion
for relief from her failure to respond to the Defendants' first set
of requests for admission and to provide new responses. Judge Alsup
gives Vivint three weeks to disclose a revised expert report.
Because this delay cuts too close to the trial date, Judge Alsup
adds the trial is continued to September 26. The final pretrial
conference is reset to September 21.
In this unfair business practices class action suit, the Plaintiff
failed to respond to the Defendants' first set of requests for
admission, so those 82 RFAs were all deemed admitted.
Thirty days before the close of fact discovery, on March 1, 2022,
Defendant Vivint, in its various corporate forms, served 82 RFAs on
representative Plaintiff Dekker. The deadline for responding to
those RFAs came and went without the Plaintiff serving any answers
or objections. Now, the counsel claims oversight.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3), if a respondent does not answer
or object to an RFA by the applicable deadline, it is deemed
admitted.
On April 21, Vivint served the opening report of Expert Leland
Price. Two weeks later, the Plaintiff served an opposition report.
Vivint then deposed the Plaintiff's expert only to find that the
expert's testimony conflicted in part with that of an earlier
Plaintiff expert from the class certification proceedings. Vivint
pointed this out and noted that the new expert was at odds with the
requests for admission as well, requests for admission by then
deemed admitted by failure to deny.
On June 7, the Plaintiff served untimely answers and objections to
81 of the 82 RFAs. After a meet-and-confer proved unsuccessful, the
Plaintiff filed a letter brief requesting leave to amend her RFA
responses. An order set a briefing schedule for formal motion
practice on the issue. This order follows full briefing --
including supplemental briefing on admissibility issues -- and oral
argument.
As an initial matter, the Plaintiff's proposed amended responses
admit RFA Nos. 1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 34, 35, 37, 39,
48, and 51. Accordingly, no dispute exists regarding these RFAs, so
the request to amend those responses is moot. Furthermore, Vivint
has withdrawn RFA Nos. 10 and 12.
Judge Alsup's Order proceeds to consider the remaining RFAs. He
permits amendments for RFA Nos. 6, 11, 15, 25, 27, 29, 41, 44, 46,
56, 57, 58, 60, and 62.
First, Judge Alsup says holding the Plaintiff and the class to the
deemed admissions for these 14 RFAs would frustrate presentation of
the merits. They go to the heart of the litigation. In particular:
RFA No. 6: ADMIT that at the time a customer signed Version 1
of a Vivint Solar PPA, it was impracticable to fix (as that term is
used in Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671(d)) the actual damage that
Vivint Solar would incur as a result of that customer's breach.
RFA No. 56: ADMIT that, in 2012, a third-party appraiser
concluded that $6.90 per Watt was a reasonable estimate of the
value of a typical Vivint Solar energy system installed on a home
in California.
RFA No. 57: ADMIT that, in 2012, 6.90 per Watt was a
reasonable estimate of the value of a typical Vivint Solar solar
energy system installed on a home in California.
RFA No. 58: ADMIT that, at the time Plaintiff Gerrie Dekker
signed her Vivint Solar PPA, Vivint Solar had been informed that
$6.90 per Watt was a reasonable estimate of the value of a typical
Vivint Solar solar energy system installed on a home in
California.
RFA No. 60: ADMIT that Plaintiff Gerrie Dekker has not
suffered any economic harm as a result of having a Vivint Solar
solar energy system on her home.
Permitting conclusive admissions for these RFAs would frustrate
fair resolution on the merits of core material disputed facts and
legal conclusions. Admissions to RFA Nos. 6, 41, 44, 46, 56, 57,
and 58 would conclusively establish various aspects of that
analysis. Admissions to RFA Nos. 60 and 62, in turn, would create
an Article III standing issue for the representative plaintiff.
Default admissions for the other RFAs listed, although not as key
to the principal issues for the litigation, would also undercut the
merits.
Vivint says the deemed admissions to these RFAs would not resolve
all the disputed issues and argues the Plaintiff has not shown that
"upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any
presentation of the merits of the case." But that stretches the
reasoning of Conlon and the opinion it quotes, Hadley v. United
States, 45 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1995). Hadley held the practical
elimination of the merits sufficient, not necessary, to justify
amendment. Given the significance of these deemed admissions, Judge
Alsup finds presentation of the merits served by amendment.
Second, as to these 14 RFAs, Judge Alsup holds that Vivint has not
demonstrated prejudice warranting denying amendment. Vivint's
arguments on this point focus on the opinions provided by
plaintiff's expert witness at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
For the December 2021 class certification motion, the Plaintiff
relied on a declaration provided by a different expert, Nora
Ostrofe. Vivint deposed Expert Ostrofe in January 2022. Vivint
argues that it crafted many of the RFAs it served in March --
including Nos. 6, 11, 25, 27, 56, 57, and 58 -- to lock down her
testimony: In particular, Expert Ostrofe's admissions on the
impracticability of fixing the actual damage caused by a customer's
breach of contract.
For trial, the Plaintiff chose not to designate any expert for its
case-in-chief. But Vivint did. Vivint's designation of Expert Price
prompted the Plaintiff to cross-designate Expert McFarlane, not
Expert Ostrofe, by way of opposition. Vivint argues that the new
expert's rebuttal report contradicts the deemed admissions and
Expert Ostrofe's testimony. Permitting amendment of the deemed
admissions, Vivint argues, would sanction a "bait and switch" that
would force it to "defend a different case."
Judge Alsup holds that the amendment of the specific RFAs he
permits would not prejudice Vivint at trial. It does not face a
sudden need to gather new evidence. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has
provided evidence, in the form of Expert McFarlane's report, that
these RFAs may not necessarily be true. The Plaintiff has somewhat
consistently stated a theory of the case contrary to these RFAs,
especially RFA Nos. 6, 56, 57, and 58. Indeed, the class
certification motion itself presented arguments contrary to the
deemed admissions. In granting class certification, the Court
expressly did not rely on Expert Ostrofe for any of the points now
in dispute.
That being said, permitting amendment will result in some prejudice
to Vivint, according to Judge Alsup. Vivint asserts it relied on
the deemed admissions when it chose to forego retaining another
expert or providing further expert disclosures on the topics
covered by the admissions. To mitigate this potential prejudice,
Judge Alsup gives Vivint three weeks to submit a revised expert
report. If the expert relies in part on the Ostrofe testimony or
declaration, the Court will decide at a later time whether it will
be permissible to so rely. Future orders regarding admissibility
will also follow the sound reasoning in Andrews v. Plains All Am.
Pipeline, L.P., 2021 WL 8742741 (C.D. Cal. Nov 10, 2021) (Judge
Philip S. Gutierrez), and will likely allow into evidence the
deposition testimony of Expert Ostrofe as a party admission
pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2)(C). Judge Alsup makes clear, however,
that the Court has not made a final decision on the admissibility
issue yet, and Vivint's expert(s) should not assume the Court will
permit that testimony into evidence.
Third, nothing in the record suggests that the Plaintiff's failure
to respond to the RFAs was anything more than a mistaken oversight
by counsel. This was serious, but contrary to Vivint, it was not
intentional gamesmanship. In short, the Plaintiff's request to
amend her responses to RFA Nos. 6, 11, 15, 25, 27, 29, 41, 44, 46,
56, 57, 58, 60, and 62 is granted.
On the other hand, Judge Alsup does not permit amendment to the
responses for the remaining RFA Nos. 2-5, 7-9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26,
30-33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52-55, 59, 61, 63-82.
These are not so central to the core issues as to permit relief, he
says. Because the Plaintiff has not carried her burden, leave to
amend as to these RFAs is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/244hh3h5 from Leagle.com.
VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Powell v. THE SCHOOL BOARD
OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political subdivision of the state of
Florida, Case No. 6:21-cv-01791-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order declaring the action to be a proper
class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The proposed Class is defined as follows:
"all students throughout the state of Florida with learning
disabilities who attended public schools owned and operated
by the Defendant, The School Board of Volusia County,
Florida."
Those qualifying proposed Class members under the age of 18
will be represented by their respective next of kin.
The Plaintiffs, at the time of filing, remain, representative of
the class of students [some of whom as minors] and former students
of the Defendant, The School Board of Volusia County, Florida, with
disabilities subjected to systemic discrimination through overtly
punitive disciplinary tactics and law enforcement to address
behaviors that are known, or should be known, manifestations of the
students' disabilities.
As a result of this systemic and unlawful discrimination, the
Defendant routinely sought to exclude these students with
disabilities by removing them from The School Board of Volusia
County, Florida's educational program through:
(1) informal removals, including regularly requiring parents
or guardians to pick-up their children from school,
telling a parent or guardian to keep a student home
without a formal suspension, and otherwise regularly
removing students with disabilities from instruction;
(2) formal removals through disciplinary actions, such as
suspensions;
(3) law enforcement involvement; and
(4) the use of "Baker Act" procedures.
The Plaintiffs move for certification of their claims for unlawful
discrimination pursuant to Title II of the Americans with
Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The Plaintiffs include KIMBERLY POWELL, as next of kin and on
behalf of J.T.A., a minor, YVONNE WOLFE, as next of kin and on
behalf of C.L., a minor, LYNETTE CLEWS, as next of kin and on
behalf of M.A.R., a minor, ELICIA RODRIGUEZ, as next of kin and on
behalf of A.J.R., a minor, MORGAN RICHARDS, as next of kin and on
behalf of D.R.R., a minor, GEORGIA HINES, as next of kin and on
behalf of G.J.H, a minor, CRYSTAL COOPER, as next of kin and on
behalf of M.R.J., a minor, ANGELICA AMIS, as next of kin and on
behalf of D.S., a minor, DONALD FAULKNER, JR., as next of kin and
on behalf of B.C.D. and J.J.F., minors, JEFFREY BLASSMEYER, as next
of kin and on behalf of L.I.B., a minor, KIMBERLY AMIS, as next of
kin and on behalf of J.M.B., a minor, BRYAN SIROIS, as next of kin
and on behalf of M.E.S., a minor, SHANNON ROBINSON, as next of kin
and on behalf of L.D.S., a minor, KAYLA KLINGLER, as next of kin
and on behalf of J.J.K., a minor, TENEA PHILLIPS, as next of kin
and on behalf of C.N.P., a minor, BRANDON BRINDLEY, as next of kin
and on behalf of A.C.B., a minor, TIFFANY REINHARDT, as next of kin
and on behalf of W.M.A., a minor, SARAH WINDHOVEN, as next of kin
and on behalf of J.M.W., a minor, ANNI SUADI, as next of kin and on
behalf of L.A., AMANDA SULLIVAN, as next of kin and on behalf of
C.M.C.L., a minor, EMMA VANCURAN, as next of kin and on behalf of
N.D.V.C., a minor, BRENT EULER, as next of kin and on behalf of
C.A.E., a minor, HEATHER DEY, as next of kin and on behalf of
D.C.D., a minor, KEVIN TOMAKA, as next of kin and on behalf of
N.A.T., a minor, WENDY WEISHEIMER, as next of kin and on behalf of
C.W., a minor, DONALD W. POWELL, as next of kin and on behalf of
S.E.P., PAMELA TOMS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.T.K., a
minor, TERRIE L. FUEHRER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.L.F., a
minor, TINA TRENCHERD, as next of kin and on behalf of H.C.T., a
minor, CARLA ANDER, as next of kin and on behalf of T.A., MIRANDA
FREELAND, as next of kin and on behalf of J.W.D., III, a minor, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QnnSeL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason L. Harr, Esq.
THE HARR LAW FIRM
The Harr Professional Center
517 South Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Telephone: (386) 226-4866
Telefax: (386) 226-4886
E-mail: jasonharr@harrlawfirm.com
lynnwilkins@harrlawfirm.com
miriamjuarez@harrlawfirm.com
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Parties File 4th Request for Time Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER NELSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his Rule 23
Motion for Class Certification.
This is the parties' fourth request for an extension of this
deadline. The first request was made on November 19, 2021 and
granted on December 2, 2021. The second request was made on January
21, 2022 and granted on January 25, 2022. The third request was
made on March 14, 2022 and granted on March 15, 2022.
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 Parties' motion dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3znEH20 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NE 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
WALMART INC: Deadline Extension to File Bids to Seal Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually
and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to
extend the deadline for them to file any motions to seal associated
with briefing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to
September 2, 2022, so as to align it with the existing deadline for
any motions to seal related to materials associated with briefing
on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On June 16, 2022, in response to the Parties' second join motion to
extend certain deadlines related to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, the Court set the Plaintiff's Reply in Support
for July 22, and related motions to seal for August 1, 2022.
On June 29, 2022, Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment. On
July 7, 2022, in response to the Parties' further joint motion to
extend briefing schedules, the Court granted an extension of time
for the Plaintiff to file his response to Walmart's motion for
summary judgment to August 5, 2022, and also further extended the
deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Plaintiff's motion for
class certification also to August 5, 2022, so as to align the
Plaintiff's briefing deadlines for his Reply in Support of Class
Certification, and his response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Walmart Inc. 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 Parties' motion dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BuS0R6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
- and -
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
The Defendant is represented by:
John Richards, Esq.
Naomi G. Beer, Esq.
James N. Boudreau, Esq.
Christiana L. Signs, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Terminus 200 Building
3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 553-2100
Facsimile: (678) 553-2212
E-mail: richardsjr@gtlaw.com
beern@gtlaw.com
boudreauj@gtlaw.com
signsc@gtlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 29 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC)
between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that
provides banking, investment, mortgage, and consumer and commercial
finance products and services.
On May 19, 2022, the New York Times published an article entitled
"At Wells Fargo, a Quest to Increase Diversity Leads to Fake Job
Interviews." Citing discussions with "seven current and former
Wells Fargo employees", including Joe Bruno, a former executive in
the Company's wealth management division, the article reported, in
relevant part, that "[f]or many open positions, employees would
interview a ‘diverse' candidate", but "that often, the so-called
diverse candidate would be interviewed for a job that had already
been promised to someone else." The article further reported that
Mr. Bruno was fired after "complain[ing] to his bosses" about the
practice. On this news, Wells Fargo's common stock price fell $0.44
per share, or 1.04%, over two trading sessions, closing at $41.67
per share on May 20, 2022.
Then, on June 6, 2022, Reuters published an article entitled,
"Wells Fargo pauses diverse slate hiring policy after reports of
fake job interviews." The article reported that "Wells Fargo . . .
is pausing a hiring policy that requires recruiters to interview a
diverse pool of candidates, after the New York Times reported such
interviews were often fake and conducted even though the job had
already been promised to someone else."
Finally, on June 9, 2022, the New York Times published an article
entitled "Federal Prosecutors Open Criminal Inquiry of Wells
Fargo's Hiring Practices." The article reported that federal
prosecutors are investigating whether Wells Fargo violated federal
laws by conducting fake job interviews to meet the Company's
Diverse Search Requirement. The article also revealed that, since
the New York Times' May 19, 2022 article focusing on the bank's
wealth management business, "another 10 current and former
employees have shared stories about how they were subject to fake
interviews, or conducted them, or saw paperwork documenting the
practice", and that "sham interviews occurred across multiple
business lines, including its mortgage servicing, home lending and
retail banking operations."
That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating that "[
the [C]ompany temporarily paused the use of its diverse slate
guidelines" and that "[d]uring this pause, the [C]ompany is
conducting a review so that hiring managers, senior leaders and
recruiters fully understand how the guidelines should be
implemented…"
Following these disclosures, Wells Fargo's common stock price fell
$3.68 per share, or 8.62%, over the following two trading sessions,
closing at $38.99 per share on June 13, 2022.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Wells Fargo had misrepresented its commitment to diversity in the
Company's workplace; (ii) Wells Fargo conducted fake job interviews
in order to meet its Diverse Search Requirement; (iii) the
foregoing conduct subjected Wells Fargo to an increased risk of
regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action,
including criminal charges; and (iv) all of the foregoing, once
revealed, was likely to negatively impact Wells Fargo's
reputation.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 29, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased WFC common stock, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Wells Fargo & Company
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks to Defer Ruling on Time Extension Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY MILLIGAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-1411 (W.D. Pa.),
the Parties file a second joint motion, requesting the Court defer
its adjudication of Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to
file motion for class certification.
The parties filed a Joint Motion to Defer Ruling on July 7, 2022,
extending the due date for Milligan's Reply on her Motion for
Extension until today, July 22, 2022, to allow the parties more
time to discuss terms of the stipulation.
The parties have reached an agreement regarding conditional
certification for overtime claims related to Wexford employees
subject to an automatic meal deduction.
The parties continue to work to finalize the attendant details and
logistics of the agreement, notice, and lookback period. The
parties request additional time to finalize all aspects of the
agreement related to conditional certification which will
ultimately result in a Joint Amended Scheduling Order and the
withdrawal of Milligan's Motion for Extension.
Accordingly, the parties request the Court continue to defer a
determination of Milligan's motion and allow them an additional two
weeks to attempt to reach an agreement on these matters.
If the parties finalize an agreement, a new proposed joint
scheduling order will be filed and Milligan will withdraw her
Motion for Extension. If the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, Milligan will file her Reply on the Motion for Extension
on August 5, 2022.
This request is not made for the purpose of hindering or delaying
these proceedings. No other deadlines or pending business before
the Court will be impacted by deferring resolution of Milligan's
motion for extension.
Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JkzbSE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Alyssa White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kimberly S. Moore, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Frisco, TX 75034
Telephone: (469) 287-3922
Telephone: (469) 227-6563
E-mail: ksmoore@clarkhill.com
- and -
Amy H. McCrossen, Esq.
One Oxford Centre
301 Grant Street, 14th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 394-7743
Facsimile: (412) 394-2555
XPO LAST: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN MUNIZ, MOHAMMED
BELAABD, JOSE DILONE, NELSON QUINTANILLA, and VICTOR AMARO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. XPO LAST
MILE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-11905-TSH (D. Mass.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting it leave to file the
proposed notice of supplemental authority.
Pursuant to Local Rules 7.1(a)(2) and 7.1(b)(3), the Defendant
moves for leave of Court to file a notice of supplemental authority
in further opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
XPO LM filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on March 21, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in
Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., Case Nos. 18-16303 &
18-17275, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18420 (9th Cir. July 5, 2022).
The Bowerman opinion contains discussion, observations, and
holdings on several issues likewise presented in, or otherwise
applicable to, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
XPO LM requests leave to file the proposed notice of supplemental
authority in order to assist the Court in adjudicating the issues
presented in the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zhtsIn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
Benjamin R. Davis, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
Facsimile: (617) 367-2155
E-mail: Douglas.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
Benjamin.Davis@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Adam L. Lounsbury, Esq.
D. Paul Holdsworth, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
701 E. Byrd Street, 17th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 649-0404
Facsimile: (804) 649-0403
E-mail: Adam.Lounsbury@jacksonlewis.com
Paul.Holdsworth@jacksonlewis.com
ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Bid to Set Aside Final Judgment Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Graham C. Mullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies the Motion
to Set Aside Judgment in the case, MATTHEW ORSO, in his capacity as
court-appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a
ZeekRewards.com, and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., as
successor in Interest to the Final Judgments entered against Net
Winners, Plaintiff, v. TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and
in his capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust; TRUDY
GILMOND; TRUDY GILMOND, LLC; JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA
GATES; DAVID SORRELLS; INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS;
SHARA ANDREWS; GLOBAL INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER;
KAREN SILVER; MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER;
MARY KETTNER; P.A.W.S. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and
a Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM; Defendants,
Case No. 3:14-cv-91 (W.D.N.C.).
Net Winner Douglas-Ray Sullivan filed a pro se Motion to Vacate
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
He seeks to have the Final Judgment issued against him five years
ago set aside, claiming he never received notice and the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction.
After the Net Winner Class in the case was certified, the Court
entered a Process Order designed to provide Net Winners with (1)
notice that they were members of the Net Winner class; and (2) an
opportunity to contest the amount of their winnings. The Process
Order required the Receiver to provide notice to all persons that
he believed were part of the Net Winner Class with notice "by email
to the email address provided by the net winner in connection with
any account" with ZeekRewards "as well as any other email address
that has been provided by the net winner." "In the event that the
notice could not be delivered to any email address provided by the
Net Winner," the Receiver was required to "send a letter to the
last known physical address of the Net Winner informing the Net
Winner of the proceedings and the availability of the amount of his
or her Net Winnings."
The Receiver was also required to "post a link on the Receivership
website" that allowed Net Winners to access all this information.
All Net Winners were provided with an opportunity to contest their
membership in the Net Winner class as well as the Receiver's
calculation of their Net Winnings. The Fourth Circuit approved of
the Process Order, concluding that it "provided a process by which
damages could be individually challenged and litigated."
Rule 60(b)(4) permits a "void" judgment to be set aside upon a
showing of extraordinary circumstances. In a defendant class
action, neither personal service nor actual notice to members of
the defendant class is required. Instead, the court in a defendant
class action must ensure that notice is "reasonably calculated,
under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections."
The successor-in-interest to the Final Judgments entered against
Net Winners, National Judgment Recovery, responded to Mr.
Sullivan's motion.
Judge Mullen explains the Court required the Receiver to effect
notice in three separate ways: via email, via mail, and via the
receivership website. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this approach,
holding that it "provided a process by which damages could be
individually challenged and litigated." It is undisputed that the
Receiver complied with the Process Order. By all measures, this was
an effort to provide notice that was "reasonably calculated, under
all the circumstances," to apprise Sullivan of the proceedings and
provide him an opportunity to present evidence concerning the
claims he now seeks to make. As the Fourth Circuit recognized,
these procedures satisfied due process requirements.
Sullivan next argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over him. The Court entered a final judgment against Sullivan,
after notice, as a member of a certified defendant Net Winner
class. According to Judge Mullen, courts throughout the country
have held that a showing of personal jurisdiction as to every class
member is not necessary, so long as other procedural safeguards
regarding notice were adhered to. The Fourth Circuit further
approved class certification in the case.
Lastly, Mr. Sullivan argues the appointment of class counsel was
without his consent and the order appointing class counsel to
represent him should be stricken. Judge Mullen points out that, in
Bell v. Brockett, the Fourth Circuit declined to reverse the
Court's appointment of class counsel, despite the Court having
erred in failing to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 922 F.3d at
514. Accordingly, Mr. Sullivan is bound by the judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fr25bcdj from Leagle.com.
ZYNGA INC: Rider to Protective Order on Amazon.com Discovery OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-214-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the Agreed Rider
To Protective Order Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery
Produced By Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.
The agreement is entered into between and among nonparty Amazon and
Ferrando and Marzano. They anticipate that Amazon will produce
documents that contain sensitive consumer information and are
necessary to provide notice of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement to members of the Settlement Class. Their agreement is
intended to supplement the protective ordered entered by the Court
on July 15, 2022.
Amazon Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider
will be used by the Class Action Administrator and the Parties
solely for the purpose of providing notice to and verifying and
paying the recovery amount owed to each member of the Settlement
Class. It will not be used directly or indirectly for any other
purpose whatsoever.
No Amazon Protected Material provided by Amazon to the Class Action
Administrator under the terms of the Rider may be shared with any
of the Parties, unless specifically authorized by the Rider. It is
the intention of Amazon and the Parties that the Rider will protect
all materials produced by Amazon in the Action unless otherwise
specified.
Nothing in the Rider will prevent or restrict Amazon's own
disclosure or use of its own Amazon Protected Material for any
purpose, and nothing in it will preclude Amazon from showing its
Amazon Protected Material to an individual who prepared it.
Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until Amazon
agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs,
subject to the Final Disposition clause therein.
As a limited exception and subject to the Rider, as of the date of
production, the Class Action Administrator may furnish to the
Counsel for the Plaintiffs the contact information for and Lifetime
Spending Amount associated with each Settlement Class Member who
has a Lifetime Spending Amount of greater than or equal to $10,000.
All Contact Information relating to a member of the Settlement
Class will be destroyed by the counsel for the Plaintiffs upon
confirmation that the member has received actual notice of the
Class Action Settlement.
The Rider is intended to provide no mechanism to the Parties
through which they can challenge the designation or protected
status of Amazon Protected Materials.
If at any time Amazon Protected Material is subpoenaed by any
court, arbitral, administrative, or legislative body, the Party to
whom the subpoena or other request is directed will immediately
give prompt written notice thereof to Amazon and to its counsel and
will provide Amazon with an opportunity to move for a protective
order regarding the production of Amazon Protected Materials
implicated by the subpoena. Absent written permission from Amazon
or a court Order secured after appropriate notice to all interested
persons, the Parties may not file or disclose in the public record
any Amazon Protected Material.
Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of
the case, the Parties and the Class Action Administrator will
return all Amazon Protected Material to outside counsel for Amazon
or destroy such Material, at the option of Amazon. "Final
Disposition" occurs after an order, mandate, or dismissal finally
terminating the above-captioned action with prejudice, including
all appeals. The counsel for the Plaintiffs that has received any
such Amazon Protected Material, as well as the Class Action
Administrator, will certify in writing that all such materials have
been returned to counsel for Amazon or destroyed.
Amazon represents that it will complete production of responsive
information, directly to the Settlement Administrator, as promptly
as possible, and was targeting production on July 25, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/43f9hyms from Leagle.com.
[*] Downward Trend of U.S. Securities Class Actions Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq. of Woodruff Sawyer disclosed that the
downward trend of securities class actions against public companies
continues as we look at the first half of 2022. If the trend holds
for the second half of 2022, the rate of securities class action
litigation against public companies will be down for a third year
in a row, according to Woodruff Sawyer's proprietary database, the
D&O DataBox.
In total, plaintiffs filed 85 suits in the first half of 2022. At
the current rate of filings, the projected outcome for year-end
2022 is 170 cases. That is fewer than the 182 cases filed in 2021,
the 210 cases filed in 2020, and the 268 cases filed in 2019.
If 2022 goes as expected, we would see another 7% drop in annual
class actions by the close of the year.
Which Types of Class Actions Happen the Most?
We see the usual suspects when it comes to class actions, including
IPO companies and now, de-SPACS. Novelty cases have emerged since
the pandemic hit, and we may continue to see more of those as
well.
More specifically:
1. De-SPAC transactions (20%): There has been a total of 57 cases
filed against de-SPACs from 2019 to the first half of 2022.
2. IPO companies (13%): Typical Section 11 cases were filed against
11 IPO companies in the first half of 2022.
3. COVID-19 cases (9%): Plaintiffs filed suit against eight
companies related to COVID-19 matters in the first half of 2022.
Which Industries Are at Risk?
The biotech and technology sectors consistently hold the top two
spots for class actions and that remains the same for the first
half of 2022.
Filings against biotechnology companies, however, have been down
since the first half of 2021. On the other hand, class actions
against tech companies are up.
After these sectors, the industries hit the most with class actions
this year included manufacturing, financial, and services.
The Top 10 Settlements for the First Half of 2022
Even though class action litigation is down this year, settlements,
unfortunately, are not. In the first half of 2022 there were 48
settlements totaling $1.4 billion.
Top settlements included:
1. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (biotechnology): $420
million for price-fixing and collusion related to a large
acquisition.
2. BlackBerry Limited (technology): $165 million for
misrepresentation of revenue growth that led to a write down of $1
billion of unsold devices and layoff of 40% of the workforce.
3. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (trade/retail): $105 million for
misrepresentation of revenue growth pertaining to a merger.
4. Nielsen Holdings Inc. (service): $73 million for
misrepresentation of revenue growth related to EU data privacy
laws.
5. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals (biotechnology): $65.75 million for
violation of antitrust laws.
6. Bank OZK (financial): $45 million for misrepresentation of
ability to assess credit risks.
7. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (construction): $44 million for
post-acquisition accounting issues.
8. Uniti Group, Inc. (financial): $38.88 million for
misrepresentation of revenue growth pertaining to its spin-off.
9. 2U, Inc. (technology): $37 million for misrepresentation of
revenue growth.
10. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (manufacturing): $36 million for
misrepresentation of CEO's compensation and use of corporate assets
for personal purposes.
Predictions for the Remainder of 2022
If the rate of class action filings remains steady, which we
expect, we will see another year with fewer class actions overall.
However, the possibility of a recession looms and could impact the
rate of filings. In our experience, economic downturns lead to
disappointed shareholders; litigation may ensue.
We will keep our eye on de-SPAC transactions and IPO companies, as
they continue to be a target for class actions.
On the D&O insurance front, the market for coverage is softening
rapidly, reflecting the lower rate of litigation. We look forward
to sharing more on how the market is developing in the September
release of our annual Looking Ahead report. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,614 PI Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of June 30, 2022, is a defendant of
3,614 claims brought in various courts in the United States by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be
filed against the Company and related companies in the future but
are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims.
Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do
not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range
of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and
therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future
claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of June 30, 2022, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,988 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.5 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.
"The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having
manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was
defending against 7,709 claims as of June 30, 2022, only twelve
claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and
only $15,000 in settlement costs have been incurred since 2001.
Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999 and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights.
"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount
Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount
Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions.
"We currently do not anticipate, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.
Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims,
based on the foregoing factors, the trends in claims filed against
us, and available insurance, we also do not currently anticipate
that potential future claims will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Jsq6Hi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Still Faces Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., continues to receive asbestos-related
product liability claims against two of its subsidiaries: CIRCOR
Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1998 and Spence Engineering
Company, Inc., the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
CIRCOR International states, "The Hoke subsidiary was divested in
January 2020 through the sale of the I&S business. However, the
Company has indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that
are made against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied
by these entities, the markets they serve and the Company's
historical experience in resolving these claims, the Company does
not expect that these asbestos-related claims will have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity of the Company.
"During the second quarter of 2021 the Company was notified of a
contract termination by one of its Industrial segment customers.
The basis for termination is under dispute and the ultimate outcome
of this matter is uncertain. During the fourth quarter of 2021 the
Company recorded a full allowance against the outstanding
receivables resulting in a charge of $6.3 million. The Company also
has outstanding guarantees of its performance under the contract in
the aggregate amount of $3.4 million. Further, the Company is
exposed to claims from sub-contractors for contract termination.
The Company has received claims from sub-contractors and has
accrued an additional $1.6 million in charges during the fourth
quarter of 2021 as its best estimate of probable loss. Should the
negotiations or settlement process be unfavorable for the Company,
the Company may be unable to collect the outstanding receivables,
be exposed to risk of loss on the outstanding performance
guarantees, additional claims from sub-contractors, losses in
excess of amounts accrued on claims from subs-contractors and
potential future claims should any be asserted."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3zwgsi7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of June 30, 2022, has reported total
asbestos-related reserves of $52 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
PPG Industries states, "The Company believes that, based on
presently available information, the total reserves of $52 million
for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of
the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos
liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other
liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the
Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims.
"The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its
asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated
liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to
determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims
is required.
"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed,
dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or
revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known
and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any,
available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of
the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of
any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii)
the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure
for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants'
alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential
changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All
of these factors may have a material effect upon future
asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of
the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure
resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QhBI1W
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Cos. Still Faces A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., has received and continues to
receive a significant number of asbestos claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Factors underlying these claim filings include
continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos
claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as
manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally primary
targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is
primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos
defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years.
The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused
increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are
not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many
jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can
present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving
priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not
shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing
dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.
"The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including
litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in
bankruptcy, over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many
coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through
settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated
demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement
negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may
include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but
which could result in settlements for larger amounts than
originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction
in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the
past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement
opportunities.
"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is
possible that other direct actions against insurers, including the
Company, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict
the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs
would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on
novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable
rulings in certain jurisdictions.
"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder with open claims at least annually.
Among the factors the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance;
the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zVkemV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $977MM Liability at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has a total asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs of
$977 million at June 30, 2022 ($1,016 million at December 31,
2021), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Each quarter, the Corporation reviews claims
filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and
resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also
considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation
and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and
processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative
developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective
effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management
considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent
actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is
warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2022 activity, it
was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
June 30, 2022."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zw0mVO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Defends 7,000 PI Claims as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation and numerous other unrelated
companies, as of June 30, 2022, were defendants in approximately
6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries
caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers
formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not
manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn
purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled
pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
"As of June 30, 2022, the Company estimates the potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be
approximately $66.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $49.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $66.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve
for asbestos claims within the condensed consolidated balance
sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2022 is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of June 30, 2022, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $66.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in insurance for
asbestos claims within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3bmM0zj
*********
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 ***