/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 19, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 181 Headlines 49ERS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Donelson Says ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suit Alleges Ovulation Test Kits' False Ads AMERICAN EDUCATION: Alers FDCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Generic Drug Price-Rigging AMNEAL PHARMA: Fleming Suit Dismissed AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in CRS Suit for Final Approval AMNEAL PHARMA: To Settle Antitrust Suit Over Generic Dementia Meds ANDY FRAIN: Underpays Security Personnel, Rillera Suit Claims ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bystolic-Related Class Suit BABCOCK & WILCOX: Proposed Class Settlement Remains Pending BAI WEI: Faces Huang Labor Suit Over Unlawful Employment Policies BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Hammock Must Clarify Claims in Suit v. BCDC BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss & Strike Bruin's Class Claims Nixed BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces James Suit Over Oregon Wildfires BEYOND MEAT: Products' Labels Are Misleading, Garcia Suit Alleges BIG CITY: Pineda Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Workers Under FLSA BILOXI H.M.A.: Fifth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Henley Class Suit BIMINI SUPERFAST: Valiente et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Sales Calls BLOOMIN' BRANDS: O'Neil Files Suit Over Unfair Pay Scheme BLUEMERCURY INC: Pozo Files Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages BMW FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final OK of Rawlings' Class Settlement BURT'S BEES: Order on Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Rose Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court BUZZFEED INC: Disclose Personal Info Without Consent, Wright Says CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY : Anders Seek to Certify Class Action CALIFORNIA: 4 Schools Can Intervene in Sweet Suit to Oppose Deal CARDONE TRAINING: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 27 CERIDIAN HCM: Stockholder Suit in Ontario Court Ongoing CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Faces Homyk Suit Over Vasculitis Meds CHINA WOK: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Lin CIMAR LLC: Faces Licea Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping CIRCA 1886: Littlefield Seeks Collective Action Certification CLUB 360: Bazarganfard, Golan Seek to Certify Classes, Subclass CNX GAS: Municipal Water Authority Seeks to Certify Class Action COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Makeup Contains Harmful Chemicals, Suit Says CONCHO RESOURCES: Class of Workers Certified in Corral FLSA Suit CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Dunn Suit Alleges EARGO INC: Faces Chung Securities Suit in California Court EARGO INC: Faces IBEW Local 353 Class Suit EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Sues Over ERISA Violation EMPIRE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges ENGRAINED CABINETRY: Manzo Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ct. Sets Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Jackin EQUIFAX INC: Gordon Sues Over Inaccurate Low Credit Information EQUITY BANCSHARES: Faces Customer Suit Over Overdraft Fees EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement System Seeks Initial OK of Settlement EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Settles TCPA-Related Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Campbell Suit FITZGERALD MOTORS: Walli Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages FORD MOTOR: Court Won't Revisit Denial of Simmons' Class Cert. Bid FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Trey Smith-Journigan Loses Class Cert. Bid FURNISHARE INC: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers, Genao Says GAMESTOP INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Suit Says GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Certification Bid GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO: Yarbrough Seeks Conditional Cert. of Suit GREYSTAR REAL: $4.665MM Class Deal in Wallace Suit Wins Final Nod GROUP HEALTH: Order Modifying Class Cert Schedule Entered GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Woodley Suit Under Appeal HELLEN DELI GROCERY: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage HENNEPIN COUNTY: Tyler Files Bid for Writ of Certiorari w/ Sup. Ct. HYATT CORP: Phase I Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to Close Nov. 2 I.Q. DATA: Removes Wong Suit to Southern District of Florida INDICAR OF DAYTONA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jones Suit Claims INSTANT BRANDS: Refuses to Warrant Pyrex Measuring Cups Products INWOOD HOSPITALITY: Ortega Sues to Recover Unlawfully Retained Tips JASON JACQUES: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Romoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania JOJO DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York K&G MEN'S COMPANY: Saint-Aubin Sues Over Unsolicited Messages KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court KIA AMERICA: Zanmiller Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Modifies Class Cert Bid Deadlines KOHL'S CORPORATION: Shanaphy Sues Over Exchange Act Violation LAMOILLE HEALTH: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach LAZY DOG: Class Settlement in Sypherd Suit Gets Initial Nod LIBERTY LATIN AMERICA: Faces Consumer Suit Over Broadband Service LIMA ONE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid LINCARE HOLDINGS: Merrell Files Suit in M.D. Florida LIPOCINE INC: Faces Abady Shareholder Suit LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Settles McAlear Employee Antitrust Suit LOGMEIN INC: Court Junks Wortman Class Status Bid LOUIS MILUSNIC: Parties Seek Final Approval of Settlement Deal LUCID GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit MACOLETTA LLC: Saavedra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MACROGENICS INC: Shareholder Suit Over Breast Cancer Meds Dismissed MARATHON PETROLEUM: Walker Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MARCO STORE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASSACHUSETTS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Roe v. Baker, Schools MAUNE CONTEMPORARY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCGUIRE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges MCKESSON CORPORATION: Saut Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MCSS REST: Class Settlement in Mendez Suit Gets Final Approval MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Dennis Testimony in Gearshift Suit Denied MELLOW MONKEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York META PLATFORMS: Klein Parties to File Revised & Redacted Complaint META PLATFORMS: Naugle Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data MHF 5TH AVE: Faces Kauser Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages MICHAELS STORES: Faces DeLaRosa Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls MODIVCARE INC: Faces Farah Suit in Missouri Court MODIVCARE INC: Subsidiary Opposes Plaintiffs' Class Status Bid MONTGOMERY ENTERPRISES: Shead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MRO CORPORATION: Hollabaugh Suit Removed to D. Maryland NAVIENT CORP: Faces Various Suits Over Violation of Consumer Laws NAVIENT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Final Nod NEW HAMPSHIRE: Price, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action NEW MEXICO: Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Fawley Suit NEW YORK, NY: Court Junks Keil Class Suit NORTH CAROLINA: Discovery in Franklin Suit Extended to Oct. 17 NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Loses Bid for Class Certification NOVANT HEALTH: Curry Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina NOVANT HEALTH: Novack Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina OAK STREET HEALTH: Faces Allison Securities Suit OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Dismisses Farmer's 1st Amended FDCPA Suit OS RESTAURANT: Thomas Files FLSA Conditional Certification Bid OSI SYSTEMS: Judgment Entered in Longo; Case Dismissed W/ Prejudice OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Marlowe Alleges PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Commissions, Vidiri Alleges PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kang Class Suit PHILO INC: Nickerson Sues Over Unlawful Disclosing of Identities PICKAWAY PLAINS: Nicklas Sues to Recover Compensation PRECIGEN INC: Faces Abailla Shareholder Suit in California Court PRECISE SECURITY: Misclassifies Security Officers, Malbory Claims PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Certify Contract Earners Class PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Fiordirosa Suit PW COMPANIES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Allowed to Seal Class Cert-Related Docs QUOGUE GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York R & R GAMES INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAYTHEON COMPANY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Fultz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois RESURRECTION UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey BIPA Suit RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Securities Class Suit RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Dozier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in CA Court ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Golubowski Class Suit ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settlement of Securities Suit for Court Nod ROCKET MORTGAGE: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in D. New Hampshire SABER HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Healthcare Workers' All Hours Worked SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Sues Over Data Breach SARABETH'S HOLDING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SATORI LASER CENTER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SCHUTZ CONTAINER: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Employees SCIBMATT LLC: Booker Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action SEA BAGS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SESEN BIO: Three Securities Cases Under Mediation SONY GROUP: Discloses Digital Subscribers' Info, Cuevas Suit Says SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Belfor Loses Bid to Toss Claims in Flores Suit SUNRUN INC: Settles Crumline Stockholder Suit in Utah Court SUNRUN INC: Settles Li Stockholder Suit SUSHINATI LLC: Seeks More Time to File FLSA Class Cert Response T&T FARMS: Court Amends Rule 16 Scheduling Order in Porter Suit T.W. GARNER: Hot Sauce Products Not Texas Products, White Claims TEAM WASHINGTON: Court Extends Time to File Deadlines TELADOC HEALTH: Court Initially Approves Settlement TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Schneider Suit Over SEC Misreporting TELADOC HEALTH: Retirement System Suit Voluntarily Dismissed TIKTOK INC: Greco Files Suit in N.D. New York TRANQUILITY GARDENS: Taylor et al. File Suit Over Unpaid Wages TURTLE BEACH CORP: Faces TCPA Class Suit TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Growers Consolidated Suit UDEMY INC: Consumer Suit in California Court Stayed UNITED COLLECTION: Wins Summary Judgment in Manopla FDCPA Suit UNITED STATES: Class of Plan Participants Certified in King Suit VANTAGECARE INSURANCE: Hoy Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Buckley Seeks to Certify Class of Employees VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settles Wolther Suit VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Brantley Securities Class Suit VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court VIEW RAY INC: Plymouth County Appeals Dismissal of Suit VROOM INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Vehicle Registration VROOM INC: Faces Sonne Suit Over Vehicle Registration WAITR HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Breach of Contract Suit WESTWEGO, LA: Court Won't Prosecute Patton Suit as Class Action WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Ct. Tosses as Moot All Pending Bids in Briggs WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Discrimination-Related Class Suit XPO LOGISTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Labul Securities Suit ********* 49ERS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Donelson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA DONELSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 49ERS ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a THE SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, Case No. 5:22-cv-05138 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately protect personally identifiable information (PII) stored in its systems and timely notify those affected about the devastating Data Breach harms its current and former employees in violation of California law. According to the complaint, cybercriminals bypassed the 49ers' inadequate security systems using ransomware to access individuals' personally identifiable information (PII), including their names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The cybercriminals also accessed information regarding the employees’ immigration statuses and their dependents' PII. From February 6 to February 11, 2022, cybercriminals breached the 49ers' "corporate IT network" and impacted its operations. It is unknown for how long the breach went undetected, meaning the 49ers had no effective means to prevent, detect, or stop the Data Breach from happening before cybercriminals stole and misused PII. Despite public news reports of the incident, it was not until August 9, 2022, that the 49ers' investigation confirmed the unauthorized access to PII stored in its system. Instead of alerting its affected individuals immediately, as required under California law, the 49ers did not disclose the breach until August 31, 2022, says the suit. Plaintiff Donelson is an employee of another NFL team and a Data Breach victim. She brings this action on behalf of herself and all others harmed by the 49ers' misconduct, seeking relief on a class wide basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. Jared W. Connors, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com jconnors@meyerwilson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., No. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suit Alleges Ovulation Test Kits' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIA LA ROSA, and PHOEBE CANEDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ALERE, PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, CHURCH & DWIGHT CO. INC., TARGET CORPORATION, CVS PHARMACY, INC., and WALGREEN CO., Case No. 2:22-cv-05435 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022) arises out of deceptive and otherwise improper business practices that the Defendants engaged in with respect to the packaging of certain ovulation test kits, which are packaged in boxes and regularly sold in major supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, and pharmacies throughout the United States, as well as on Amazon and other online retailers. According to the complaint, millions of people buy and rely upon Defendants' Kits for family planning purposes. The Defendants' Kits are misleadingly advertised as being able to tell women, with 99% or greater accuracy, when they will ovulate, and thus, when they are the most fertile and most likely to be able to become pregnant. However, the Defendants' Kits do not test whether a woman is ovulating. Instead, these products only test Luteinizing Hormone (LH) levels, says the suit. LH is made by a person's pituitary gland and is present in varying levels for people of all genders. LH levels generally rise quickly just before ovulation in women, but LH levels can spike at varying times in the menstrual cycle for a variety of other reasons unrelated to ovulation. Defendants' Kits identify when a person has a spike in LH -- not when ovulation will occur. The Defendants intentionally mislabel their Kits as ovulation test kits. The Defendants know that their Kits test LH and not ovulation, but marketing their products as "LH Test Kits," where LH may or may not predict ovulation, would be far less attractive to women seeking to get pregnant. False promises such as these allow Defendants to capitalize on reproductive anxiety and reap massive profits well in excess of $5,000,000 million dollars per year from unwitting consumers, the suit asserts. The Defendants produce, market, label and sell various ovulation test kits in the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniella Quitt, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: dquitt@glancylaw.com - and - Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Natalie S. Pang, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com - and - Mark Finkelstein, Esq. Brent S. Colasurdo, Esq. UMBERG ZIPSER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 750 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 679-0052 E-mail: mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com AMERICAN EDUCATION: Alers FDCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jason Alers, Kevin Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency doing business as: American Education Services, Performant Recovery, Inc., Transworld Systems Inc., Account Control Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02073 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 1, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01357-CCC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) -- https://www.pheaa.org/ -- is a quasi-governmental agency that administers several state-level and national higher education student financial aid programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy Nash, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 570 Broad St., Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 - and - Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC Two Gateway Center., 12th Fl Newark, NJ 07102-5003 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Email: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com - and - James Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2000 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 299-2836 Fax: (215) 299-2150 - and - Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. MEREDITH, COHEN, GREENFOGEL & SKIMICK, P.C. 1521 Locust Street, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-5182 Fax: (215) 569-0958 Email: sgreenfogel@mcgslaw.com - and - Brent W. Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1604 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, DC 19103 Phone: (267) 702-2300 Email: blandau@hausfeldllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Justin G. Weber, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 100 Market Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Phone: (717) 255-1170 Email: justin.weber@troutman.com - and - Christopher Robert Healy, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 20006 Phone: (215) 981-4644 Email: christopher.healy@troutman.com - and - John C. Lynch, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 CENTRAL PARK AVE SUITE 2000 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462 Phone: (757) 687-7765 - and - Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER, LTD. 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718 Jacksonville, FL 32223 Phone: (904) 527-1172 Fax: (904) 683-7353 Email: lburnette@messerstrickler.com - and - Aaron R. Easley, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Phone: (908) 237-1660 Email: aeasley@sessions.legal - and - Matthew B. Johnson, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP 100 PARK AVE SUITE 2000 NEW YORK, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 404-0626 Email: mjohnson@stradley.com - and - Bridget C. Giroud, Esq. Len A. Fisher, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-8740 Email: bgiroud@stradley.com - and - William T. Mandia, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 321-2417 Fax: (856) 321-2415 Email: wmandia@stradley.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Generic Drug Price-Rigging ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda's "Colcrys" (colchicine), including Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. The company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and on December 28, 2021, the Court granted the motion in full, with leave to amend. On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, making substantively the same antitrust allegations, but alleging that the violations were effectuated by either a single overarching conspiracy or a series of bilateral conspiracies. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 30, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in party defendants' motion, dismissing the newly pled bilateral conspiracy claims but allowing the revised overarching conspiracy claim to proceed against all defendants. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Fleming Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a class action was dismissed after a stipulated final judgment was entered in July 2022. On April 17, 2017, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against its subsidiary Impax Specialty Pharma and four former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 captioned "Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al.," No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG. Plaintiff alleges that Impax concealed collusion with competitors to fix the price of the generic drug digoxin, concealed anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and overstated the value of the generic drug budesonide. In June 2021, plaintiffs, who had filed various motions to intervene as a plaintiff in the case, and defendants reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the case for $33.0 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is covered in full by insurance (refer to Note 17. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets for amounts deposited into a settlement escrow account). The district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on November 22, 2021, and held a fairness hearing on March 31, 2022. On July 15, 2022, the district court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. On July 21, 2022, a stipulated final judgment was entered, effectively terminating this matter before the district court. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in CRS Suit for Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a final approval of a settlement agreement hearing was set in August 2022. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 captioned "Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," No. SOM-L-1701-19. Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018, amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2020, and in April 2021 filed a second amended complaint including similar allegations regarding a November 2017 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination. The company's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion for class certification are currently pending. In February 2022, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the claims, subject to, among other things, the negotiation and court approval of a definitive settlement agreement. On March 28, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $25.0 million that remains subject to, among other things, final court approval. On April 29, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is set for August 15, 2022. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: To Settle Antitrust Suit Over Generic Dementia Meds ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that class action settlement is subject to approval by the court and trial is set for October 2022. In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis PLC) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest's "Namenda IR" product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiff's claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay and referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiff's claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiff informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the company reached a settlement with plaintiff, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the company). The settlement is now subject to final approval from the Court. The company anticipates a final determination regarding approval to be made after a trial as to the plaintiff's claims against the non-settling parties. Trial is scheduled to begin in October 2022. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. ANDY FRAIN: Underpays Security Personnel, Rillera Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMAYIA RILLERA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., and DAVID H. CLAYTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07357 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a security officer from on or around May 2020 through and including the present date. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained an unlawful policy and practices of manipulating their security personnel's hours worked, known as "time shaving." Specifically, the Defendants would change the Plaintiff's "clock-in" at around 9:00 a.m. although their morning shifts would start at approximately 5:30 a.m., thereby forcing the Plaintiff to work off the clock without being compensated. AS a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to properly pay their 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. In addition, the Defendant failed to post notices regarding their security personnel's wages as required under the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants also did not provide them with a statement of wages, and with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL, says the suit. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Security Personnel, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants seeking for injunctive and declaratory relief to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Andy Frain Services, Inc. provides security services. David H. Clayton is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street., Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bystolic-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Ani Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that starting December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug "Bystolic." On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the company as a defendant based on the company's January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys' fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the company or other defendants and the company at this early stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL). On April 23, 2021, the company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contain substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the company and other defendants filed replies to those oppositions. The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and pending with the court. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a diversified bio-pharmaceutical company based in MInnesota. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Proposed Class Settlement Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a proposed settlement on the class action lawsuit remains pending and subject to court approval. On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder filed a derivative and class action complaint against certain of the company's directors (current and former), executives and significant stockholders and the company. The action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and is captioned Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2019 rights offering and related transactions. On June 10, 2022, after pursuing private mediation, the parties to the Stockholder Litigation reached a settlement agreement in principle to resolve the Stockholder Litigation. That settlement agreement includes (i) certain corporate governance changes that the company is willing to implement in the future, (ii) a total payment of $9.5 million, and (iii) other customary terms and conditions. All attorney's fees, administration costs, and expenses associated with the settlement of this matter will be deducted from the total payment amount, other than the cost of notice, which will be borne by the company. Of the total settlement amount, the company will pay $4.75 million on behalf of B. Riley Financial, Inc. and Vintage Capital Management, LLC pursuant to existing contractual indemnification obligations to settle Plaintiff's direct claims asserted against these entities. This $4.75 million, after the deduction of attorney's fees and the customary settlement costs and expenses described above, will be paid to shareholders of the company, excluding any Defendant in the Stockholder Litigation. The remaining $4.75 million of the total settlement amount, after the deduction of attorney's fees and the customary settlement costs and expenses described above, will be paid to the company from insurance proceeds and the contribution of certain other parties to the Stockholder Litigation to settle the derivative claims asserted by Plaintiff on behalf of the company. The proposed settlement, which remains subject to court approval, would resolve all claims that have been, could have been, could now be, or in the future could, can, or might be asserted in the Stockholder Litigation. The settlement of this matter remains subject to court approval and the full amount is accrued by the company at June 30, 2022 Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. is a growing, globally-focused renewable, environmental and thermal technologies provider based in Ohio. BAI WEI: Faces Huang Labor Suit Over Unlawful Employment Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- YE MING HUANG v. BAI WEI LLC d/b/a Bai Wei, Case No. 2:22-cv-03618 (Sept. 9, 2022) is a class action arising from the Defendant's various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The complaint asserts that the Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and PAMWA and WPCL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Hammock Must Clarify Claims in Suit v. BCDC ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TERRENCE HAMMOCK, Plaintiff v. GAIL WATTS, RENARD BROOKS, MAJOR ROBERT ALFORD, SGT. G. CARTER, N. KPIKPITSE, MS. ALSTON, MS. JOHNSON, SGT. A. DUPREE, SGT. T. BOND, SGT. CE CARTER, SGT. J. PAIGE, SGT. B. ROSE, SGT. A. KELLY, DR. ZOWIE BARNES, Defendants, Case No. DKC-22-1386 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion directing the Plaintiff to show cause why his claims were not raised in his previously filed lawsuit. The civil rights complaint was received by the Court on June 7, 2022, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit against various officials at the Baltimore County Detention Center ("BCDC") but it has been drafted and filed by Plaintiff Terrence Hammock, who designates himself as lead Plaintiff. There are 18 additional plaintiffs listed in the complaint. For the reasons stated, Judge Chasanow holds that the attempt to file this complaint as a class action must fail and Mr. Hammock will be required to explain why he is asserting these claims when he has filed a substantially similar complaint in the past that is still pending. Mr. Hammock raises seven claims. The first claim asserts that the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments are being violated by Dietary Sergeant G. Carter, Dietary Officer N. Kpikpitse, Director Gail Watts, Deputy Director Renard Brooks and major Robert Alford because they are allowing "improper food." He claims that everyday breakfast and dinner are cold and "by law" they are supposed to be hot meals. As examples he states that breakfast grits are lumpy, undone, and hard; rotten apples are served regularly, lunchmeat has mouse bites on it, stale bread is served, no wheat bread is offered and every meal has very small portions, which is not enough to feed a grown man. The Plaintiff next claims that the detention center is infested with mice but Defendants Watts, Brooks and Alford are not doing anything to resolve the problem. He states that "mice comes [sic] in our cells while we're asleep and eat our commissary that our families sent us money to buy which violates our 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments." He asserts that the Defendants knew about the problem for years which makes them liable for pain and suffering, injury or financial harm. Mr. Hammock also claims his First Amendment right of access to the courts is being violated by library officers Ms. Alston and Ms. Johnson, as well as Defendants Watts, Brooks, and Alford. He bases this claim on the fact that protective custody detainees are not permitted to physically go to the law library to study their cases. Mr. Hammock also alleges his First amendment right to free exercise of religious beliefs is being violated because he and other protective custody detainees are denied the opportunity to "physically go to service namely, Muslim Jumah services, Indian service, Christianity Service or any other religious services." He explains that a memo has been posted inside the detention center stating that only general population can go to religious services. He asserts that Defendants Watts, Brooks and Alford are liable for implementing this policy. An additional Eighth Amendment claim is asserted by Mr. Hammock in connection with the showers provided to protective custody inmates. He explains that the showers are not cleaned by the jail workers, who get days and paid for this. He claims that Sgt. T. Bond, Sgt. A. Dupree, Sgt. C.E. Carter, Sgt. A. Kelly, Sgt. B. Rose, Sgt. J. Paige, Director Watts, Deputy Director Brooks, and Major Alford are liable. He claims that the problem has existed since February of 2020 and adds that there may also be asbestos in the area. Mr. Hammock claims that protective custody inmates are denied their First Amendment "right to get fresh air." He claims that they are not given outside recreation or time in the gym for recreation so they can exercise. He alleges that Defendants Watts, Brooks, Alford, Dupree, Bond, Carter, Paige, Rose, and Kelly are liable because they are aware of the deprivation and deliberately disregarded his rights. Lastly, Mr. Hammock alleges there is a lack of adequate medical treatment at the detention center. He states that he, and others at the detention center, were denied medical treatment for spider bites, sciatica, surgery, mental issues, stab wounds from being assaulted by other inmates, diabetes, vision issues, injuries resulting from slippery shower floors. He claims that Defendants Dr. Zowie Barnes, Watts, Brooks, Bond, Rose and Alford are liable for the denial of medical care because they knew about the lack of medical care and did nothing to fix any of the problems or to address the medical needs of the plaintiffs. As relief, Mr. Hammock seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as monetary damages. This case is the second civil rights complaint filed by Mr. Hammock alleging substantially the same allegations raised here. The first one is Hammock v. Watts, et al., Civil Action TDC-22-482 (D. Md. 2022) (hereinafter "Hammock I"). In that complaint Mr. Hammock alleged that the food served at BCDC is cold and of poor quality; his right to practice his religion has been curtailed; he has inadequate access to the law library; he was housed in the same unit as COVID-19 positive inmates; he has received inadequate medical care for specified conditions; and he did not receive commissary items although he paid for them. The current complaint appears to be an attempt to litigate these claims twice; once on behalf of Mr. Hammock himself and once on behalf of Mr. Hammock and other inmates. Judge Chasanow holds that both the attempt to file these claims as a class action and the attempt to litigate the claims twice are problematic. First, Mr. Hammock may not file a class action. The complaint has not been filed by an attorney and Mr. Hammock, as a self-represented litigant, is barred from instituting a class action whereby he would be representing others. While the remaining listed Plaintiffs are free to file separate actions on their own behalf, they may not proceed in this case. Secondly, the Plaintiffs are generally not permitted to litigate a case in separate civil actions when the later suit raises claims that could have been filed in an earlier proceeding. Mr. Hammock will be directed to show cause why the claims asserted in this complaint were not raised in Hammock I or why he should not be required to move for leave to amend in the earlier case to add any additional claims or name further defendants. Mr. Hammock is forewarned that failure to provide an explanation regarding the claims raised in Hammock I and the claims raised in this complaint will result in the dismissal of this complaint without further notice and without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4bppmm6f from Leagle.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss & Strike Bruin's Class Claims Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMI BRUIN, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERCA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. The National Automated Clearinghouse ("NACHA") system is a complex payments system operating in the background of the country's economic activity. Increasingly, the system is used for small-dollar consumer payments, such as utility bills, gym memberships, insurance payments, etc. Transactions made through the NACHA system are called "ACH transactions." The Plaintiff alleges that, in every ACH transaction, there is an Originator and a Receiver, and an Originating Depository Financial Institution ("ODFI") and a Receiving Depository Financial Institution ("RDFI"). In this class action lawsuit, Bruin alleges that Bank of America ("BoA"), convinced her and other reasonable consumers to pay $3 to $10 in "ACH Transfer Fees" for electronic transfers the consumers could effectuate for free by misleading them into believing that they had to pay these fees in order to make those transfers. The Plaintiff alleges that she incurred a $3 fee for an ACH transfer that she made from her BoA checking account on Feb. 17, 2021. She alleges that if she had "known that she could have made the exact same transfers for free had she initiated the transfer from the receiving bank account, she would not have paid the ACH Transfer Fees." The Plaintiff alleges that, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, the ACH system is built with a unique and elegant symmetry: any payment can either be "pushed" from an account to a recipient, or it can be, with proper authorization, "pulled" by a recipient from that same account. She alleges that BoA does not and cannot assess fees for transferring funds "pulled" from accounts. But it does assess fees on its accountholders for initiating transfers that are ultimately processed over the NACHA network -- in other words, for starting the process that leads to "pushing" funds to a recipient. The Plaintiff alleges that BoA therefore has a natural incentive to encourage its customers to use it to initiate "pushes" to recipients directly. Indeed, BoA charges a $3 to $10 fee each time it convinces an accountholder to do this, which according to the Plaintiff is a wholly unnecessary service. The Plaintiff further alleges that "the workings of the NACHA system are a mystery to the millions of American consumers whose payments are sent out on the system each day" and that BoA "is engaged in a multi-prong effort to deceive its accountholders about the workings of the NACHA system, so that it may use its superior knowledge about the system to extract extra fee income from its accountholders." She alleges that none of BoA's major competitors charge ACH Transfer Fees like BoA does. The Plaintiff asserts two claims against BoA on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative nationwide class: (1) violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. Section 75.1, et seq. ("UDTPA"), and (2) unjust enrichment under North Carolina common law. On June 13, 2022, the Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss and motion to strike, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively. The Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Defendants have filed a Reply. First, the Plaintiff essentially alleges that the Defendant violated the North Carolina UDTPA when it represented to its customers that they were required to pay a transfer fee that its customers did not have to pay. Convincing consumers to pay for an illusory or valueless service is a core deceptive business practice barred by consumer protection laws across the country. Judge Cogburn finds that the Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently state a claim under the North Carolina UDTPA. The Plaintiff's theory is that BoA is intentionally exploiting consumers' unfamiliarity with complex NACHA rules and the NACHA payment system to recover a fee that's not required. These allegations are simply enough to state a claim for an unfair and deceptive trade practice in North Carolina. Therefore, Judge Cogburn denies the motion to dismiss this claim. Second, the Plaintiff alleges that she was misled into paying a fee for an ACH transfer that she would not have paid for had she known she didn't have to. She alleges that she reasonably believed she was required to initiate the ACH transfer through BoA and was further required to pay a fee for an ACH "transfer." She alleges she was duped into paying for an ACH "initiation" she did not need and could get for free elsewhere. Judge Cogburn agrees with the Plaintiff that the mere fact that BoA actually provided that "initiation" does not undercut her unjust enrichment claim. BoA's reliance on the Online Banking Service Agreement to avoid the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim also fails because the Plaintiff does not argue that BoA breached a specific contractual provision but, instead, alleges that BoA tricks accountholders into paying for an ACH transfer that she can otherwise get for free, which is unjust. Hence, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for unjust enrichment under North Carolina common law. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim is denied. Finally, BoA also moves to strike the nationwide class, arguing that choice-of-law issues preclude class certification. Judge Cogburn agrees with the Plaintiff that the choice of law determination is premature, and thus the motion to strike is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pcrmaj9 from Leagle.com. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces James Suit Over Oregon Wildfires ---------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that its subsidiary Pacificorp is facing a putative class action complaint captioned "Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al.," Case No. 20cv33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, September 30, 2020. The complaint was filed by Oregon residents and businesses who seek to represent a class of all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or personal property was harmed beginning on September 7, 2020, by wildfires in Oregon allegedly caused by PacifiCorp. On November 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by the Echo Mountain, South Obenchain, Two Four Two and Santiam Canyon (also known as Beachie Creek) fires, as well as to add claims for noneconomic damages. The amended complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed to the Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and that PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things. The amended complaint seeks the following damages for the plaintiffs and the putative class: (i) noneconomic damages, including mental suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience and interference with normal and usual activities, in excess of $1 billion; (ii) damages for real and personal property and other economic losses of not less than $600 million; (iii) double the amount of property and economic damages; (iv) treble damages for specific costs associated with loss of timber, trees and shrubbery; (v) double the damages for the costs of litigation and reforestation; (vi) prejudgment interest; and (vii) reasonable attorney fees, investigation costs and expert witness fees. The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right to further amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive damages. In May 2022, the Multnomah Circuit Court granted issue class certification and consolidated this case with others. PacifiCorp requested an immediate appeal of the issue class certification before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Berkshire Hathaway Energy company is a holding company based in Iowa. BEYOND MEAT: Products' Labels Are Misleading, Garcia Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD D. GARCIA, ERICA NICHOLS COOK, JENNIFER SPEER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00297-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 9, 2022) is a civil class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all consumers who purchased the Defendant's Beyond Meat products for personal or household use. Amidst the growing consumer demand for meat substitutes, Defendant has, and continues to, design, manufacture, promote, market, advertise, package, label, distribute, and sell Beyond Meat Products. The Beyond Meat products in this complaint includes Beyond Meat Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Links Hot Italian 14 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Sausage Links Brat Original 14 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based 16oz Patties, Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground Beef, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Classic 7.4 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Spicy 7.4 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Chicken Plant-Based Breaded Tenders Classic 8 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Meatballs Italian Style Plant-Based Meatballs 12 CT Classic 10 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Links Classic 8.3 oz. According to the complaint, Beyond Meat Products' labels, and Defendant's related marketing claims, are false and misleading because the Defendant: -- miscalculates and overstates the Products' protein content, which is measured in grams per serving determined by nitrogen testing; -- miscalculates and overstates the quality of the protein found in its products, which is represented as a percentage of daily value and calculated by the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score method (PDCAAS); and -- misleads consumers into believing that the Products provide equivalent nutritional benefits to that found in traditional meat-based products. By advertising protein content on the Beyond Meat Products' front label, the Defendant misleads consumers into believing that they stand to benefit from the Products' stated protein content. The Defendant also makes numerous false and misleading claims and/or omissions on its website, in its promotional and marketing materials, and on the Products' nutritional labels. The Defendant has engaged in unfair and/or deceptive business practices by intentionally misrepresenting the nature and quality of Beyond Meat Products on the Products' respective nutrition labels and by failing to follow federal regulations that set forth the appropriate testing methodologies for determining protein content, says the suit. The Defendant is a plant-based meat substitutes company that was founded in 2009 and launched its initial product line in 2012.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com BIG CITY: Pineda Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Workers Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN PINEDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BIG CITY REALTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05428-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022) alleges that the Defendants refuse to pay premium overtime wages to their largely immigrant workforce of maintenance workers, pervasively fail to pay wages in a timely manner, and require that their workers spend time performing work without any remuneration whatsoever in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The maintenance workers are porters, superintendents, handymen and other manual laborers. The majority of the manual laborers who maintain Defendants' buildings speak limited English, and they are unlikely to be familiar with the American legal system. The Defendants are owners and managers of apartment buildings in low-income neighborhoods. The Defendants include CFF CONSULTING INC., 3427 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3440 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3660 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 633 WEST 152 BCR, LLC, 605 WEST 151 BCR, LLC, 545 EDGECOMBE BCR, LLC, 535-539 WEST 155 BCR, LLC, 408-412 PINEAPPLE, LLC, 106-108 CONVENT BCR, LLC, 510-512 YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 513 YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 145 PINEAPPLE LLC, 2363 ACP PINAPPLE, LLC, 580 ST. NICHOLAS BCR, LLC, 603-607 WEST 139 BCR, LLC, 559 WEST 156 BCR, LLC, 3750 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, KOBI ZAMIR, and FERNANDO ALFONSO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC 80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206 New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 382-1600 E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com - and - Meredith Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW, PLLC 167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (347) 878-2587 E-mail: meredith@millerlaw.nyc BILOXI H.M.A.: Fifth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Henley Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMBERLY HENLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BILOXI H.M.A., L.L.C., a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, doing business as MERIT HEALTH BILOXI, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-60991 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the district court's grant of Merit Health's motion to dismiss. The matter is an appeal from a district court's grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Henley sought a declaratory judgment that Merit Health, a hospital, has a duty to disclose that it charges a "facility fee," also referred to as a "surcharge," to all emergency room patients who receive care at its facility. Merit Health charges every emergency room patient that visits one of its facilities in Mississippi a surcharge set at one of five levels. For example, according to the complaint, the 2019 surcharge levels at Merit Health's Biloxi location were: (1) Basic - $589.32; (2) Limited - $1,323.39; (3) Intermediate - $1,840.01; (4) Extensive - $2,377.89; and (5) Major - $3,567.89. These surcharges are not based on the individual services or treatments that a patient receives; rather, Merit Health includes a surcharge in the bill of every patient that is seen at the emergency room of its facility, in addition to the line-item charges for specific services provided. Merit Health does not inform patients prior to treatment, either verbally or through signage, of the existence or amounts of the surcharges. These facts are alleged in the complaint and therefore are controlling at this motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings. Ms. Henley sought emergency care at Merit Health's Biloxi location on May 19, 2018. She alleges she received no notice or warning, either verbally or through signage, regarding surcharges. She was subsequently billed a gross amount (before discounts) of $17,752.47, which included a $2,201.75 surcharge. Merit Health then applied a 65% self-pay discount to Henley's bill, reducing the total to $6,213.36, including a discounted surcharge of $770.61. The surcharge appeared on the itemized billing statement as "ER DEPT EXTENSIV," but the billing statement did not identify the charge as a surcharge or explain that the charge was a surcharge added on top of line-item charges for specific treatments. According to the complaint, Henley was "shocked" when she found out she had been charged a surcharge on top of the amounts billed for specific treatments and services she had been provided. She avers she would have sought treatment elsewhere if she had been informed about the surcharge prior to receiving treatment. At the time the complaint was filed, Henley had paid more than $1,500 of her bill, but continued to receive statements from Merit Health for the outstanding balance. According to the complaint, patients like Henley are not aware that the surcharge will be added to their bills and that Merit Health knows that patients are unaware of the surcharge. Merit Health "represents itself as a caring community-based organization," and "unlike a normal arms-length transaction between a buyer and a seller, a patient seeking medical services" at Merit Health "places a great degree of trust and confidence on the good intention of the hospital to treat him or her fairly and with compassion." Henley avers that, if known prior to treatment, the existence of the surcharge would be a substantial factor in a patient's decision about where to receive treatment. Ms. Henley brought a putative class action lawsuit against Merit Health pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 seeking a declaratory judgment that the hospital had a duty under Mississippi state law to disclose the surcharge to patients prior to treatment. However, the district court did not rule on the class action certification and the parties have not briefed it on appeal. Merit Health moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court, making an Erie guess informed by the Mississippi Supreme Court's references to, and partial application of, the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 551, determined that Merit Health did not have a duty to disclose because the surcharge was not a "fact basic to the transaction." It granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Henley's complaint with prejudice, holding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the surcharge was a "fact basic to the transaction" as per Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 551(2)(e) and comment j. that would trigger a duty to disclose under Mississippi law. Henley appealed. The question in the case is whether a duty to disclose arises under Mississippi law on the facts alleged in Henley's complaint. The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court's assessment that there is no final authority from the Mississippi Supreme Court conclusively deciding the issue of whether a duty to disclose exists under the circumstances presented. Thus, it must rely on the Mississippi Supreme Court's decisions to provide guidance as it determines how it would resolve the issue. The Fifth Circuit disagrees with the district court's Erie guess for two reasons. First, it thinks that the Mississippi Supreme Court would not rely on Section 551(2)(e) comment j. in the manner that the district court did, applying its text and its comments like a statute, because none of the Mississippi Supreme Court cases apply Section 551 or its comments as if they were strictly binding to the exclusion of all other elements of that Court's jurisprudence. Second, the distinction in comment j between "material" and "basic" facts, relied upon by the district court, is not found in the Mississippi duty-to-disclose caselaw. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit reverses the district court's grant of Merit Health's motion to dismiss and remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8npzwe from Leagle.com. BIMINI SUPERFAST: Valiente et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ YESENIA VALIENTE and YISHAI MIZRAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIMINI SUPERFAST OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-22737-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 29, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs received telephonic sales calls from the Defendant to their cellular telephone numbers in an attempt to promote its goods and services. Based on the text messages received by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiffs with instructions on how to opt-out of future text messages, which is an indicative that the Defendant failed to maintain written policies and procedures regarding its text messaging marketing, failed to provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, and failed to maintain a standalone do-not-call list. Plaintiff Valiente's cellular telephone number has been consistently registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since on or about July 24, 2008. In addition, the Defendant has used a computer software system that automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' telephone numbers. More specifically, the Plaintiffs never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing the placement of a telephonic sales call by text message using an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals were allegedly harmed, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without express written consent, as well as statutory damages for themselves and for other similarly situated individuals, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. Bimini Superfast Operations, LLC operates a high-speed cruise business using a vessel called "Resorts World Bimini Superfast." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (855) 288-4316 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and – Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 333180 Tel: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com BLOOMIN' BRANDS: O'Neil Files Suit Over Unfair Pay Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Tracey O'Neil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.; OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC; and OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04851 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003 in that Defendants paid the Plaintiff wages at a rate less than the rate at which Defendants paid employees of the opposite sex for the same or substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which required substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed under similar working conditions. The Plaintiff was hired as a manager by Kevin Vo, a former Junior Venture Partner at Outback Steakhouse. Plaintiff's starting salary was $55,000. The Plaintiff worked with male managers at the Restaurant with whom she shared the same job duties, including organizing repairs and maintenance, making and correcting employee schedules, supervising lower-level employees, and managing budgets. In March 2020, Plaintiff was promoted to Managing Partner. At that time, her salary increased to $60,000. The Defendants employed male Managing Partners within Plaintiff's territory and throughout the state and country who performed the same job responsibilities at their respective restaurants. As a Managing Partner, the Plaintiff had access to the salary information of all Restaurant staff, including managers. While reviewing this information, Plaintiff noticed that female managers were paid lower salaries than male managers. Specifically, the Plaintiff noted three separate female managers earned salaries in the $40,000 range, while a male manager earned approximately $51,000. The Plaintiff is aware that women in managerial positions at other restaurant chains owned and operated by Defendants are also paid less than men in managerial positions. In October 2020, a former Managing Partner at Bonefish Grill in Troy, Michigan informed Plaintiff that two women in managerial positions with the same or more years of experience in their position were paid thousands of dollars less than a man in the same position. The Defendants' practice of paying the Plaintiff and all women in managerial positions less than their similarly situated male counterparts violates the EPA and IEPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at an Outback Steakhouse restaurant located in Skokie, Illinois. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and restaurant holding Company who owns and operates several restaurant brands throughout the United States, including Outback Steakhouse, Carraba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill, and Fleming's Steakhouse & Wine Bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis D. Martin, Esq. Nicole Young, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 763-6880 Email: amartin@caffarelli.com nyoung@caffarelli.com BLUEMERCURY INC: Pozo Files Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD POZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07382 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a sales associate at a Bluemercury store in New York, New York from approximately November 2019 to October 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to timely pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual workers. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid them every other week. As a result, they were injured for half of each biweekly ay period because they were temporarily deprived of money owed to them, and lost the time value of that money because they could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully theirs, says the suit. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendant for liquidated damages in amounts to be determined by the Court, for prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of suit. Bluemercury, Inc. owns and operates a chain of Bluemercury retail stores in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com BMW FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final OK of Rawlings' Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued final approval to the class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER RAWLINGS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-2289 (S.D. Ohio). The matter is before the Court on the July 27, 2022 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge considered the parties' Joint Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement at a fairness hearing, after which, she and recommended that the Court approve the parties' proposed settlement. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been filed. For the reasons set forth therein, the Court adopts and affirms the Report and Recommendation and grants the Joint Motion according to the following terms: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), the Court finds after a hearing and based on the parties' submissions, the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The terms and provisions of the Settlement are the product of thorough, arms-length negotiations among experienced and competent counsel. Approval of the Settlement will result in substantial savings of time, money, and effort to the Court and the parties and will further the interests of justice; 3. All Class Members are bound by this Judgment and by the terms of the Settlement; 4. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, this Judgment, or the fact of the settlement constitutes any admission by any of the parties of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of law, damages or lack thereof, or of the validity or invalidity of any claim or defense asserted in the Action; 5. The Court has considered the submissions by the parties and all other relevant factors, including the results achieved and the efforts of Class Counsel in prosecuting the claims on behalf of the Class Members. Plaintiff participated in the Action, acted to protect the Class Members, and assisted his counsel. The efforts of Class Counsel have produced the Settlement entered into with good faith, providing a fair, reasonable, adequate, and certain result for the Class Members. Class Counsel have made application for an award of $316,666.67 in attorneys' fees, $15,122.79 in expenses incurred in the prosecution of the Action on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, and $14,789 to be paid to the Settlement Administrator for administering the Settlement. The Court finds the amounts requested for fees and expenses to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances. The Court awards $331,789.46 as attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel. Analytics will also be paid $14,789 for its services in administering this Settlement. Further, the Plaintiff is entitled to a fair, reasonable, and justified service award of $10,000 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and to be paid from the Settlement Fund; 6. This Action is dismissed with prejudice; and 7. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this Judgment and the Settlement Agreement and all matters ancillary thereto. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3r3ywyf3 from Leagle.com. BURT'S BEES: Order on Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY BARRETT, DANIELA GRUEN, LAURA HARMAN, MARILYN MOORE BUICE, AND CAROLINE SPINDEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BURT'S BEES, INC., THE CLOROX COMPANY, and THE BURT'S BEES PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00935-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule and discovery deadlines as follows: 1. Class certification fact discovery shall be completed by April 7, 2023, noting the Parties' agreement to an exception for Plaintiffs' depositions; 2. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and expert reports in support of class certification is April 20, 2023; 3. The deadline for Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification and expert reports in opposition to class certification is June 22, 2023; and 4. The deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification and rebuttal expert reports in support of class certification is July 24, 2023. Burt's Bees is an American multinational, personal care product company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ep84u5 at no extra charge.[CC] BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Rose Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Butterfly Network, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the company was named defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled "Rose v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, the Chairman of its board of directors, as well as Longview's Chairman (who is a director of the Company), Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of Longview's board of directors prior to the Business Combination, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021 and/or holders as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021 in connection with the approval of the Business Combination. The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business Combination business and financial prospects, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, together with interest thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation. Butterfly Network, Inc. is into digital health business based in Connecticut. BUZZFEED INC: Disclose Personal Info Without Consent, Wright Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUZZFEED, INC., d/b/a HUFFPOST.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04927 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2022) alleges Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in the practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing the Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class Members' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and (ii) the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed, without the proper consent. BUZZFEED, INC., d/b/a HUFFPOST.COM operates as a digital media and tech company. The Company focuses on internet media, news, and entertainment content. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 444-0734 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com -and- Patrick Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams St., Ste. 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 500-8680 Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com -and- Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 494-3531 Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY : Anders Seek to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS ET AL., v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Taylor Anders and Courtney Walburger ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this litigation as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on behalf of two classes defined as follows: a. Current and future female Fresno State students who: (i) have lost membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State; (ii) have sought but not achieved membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State; and/or (iii) are able and ready to seek membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State but have not done so due to a perceived lack of opportunity. b. Current and future female Fresno State students who: (i) participate or have participated in women's varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State; and/or (ii) are able and ready to participate in women's varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State but have been deterred from doing so by the treatment received by female varsity intercollegiate student-athletes at Fresno State. 2. Appointing their counsel as class counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); 3. Appointing the proposed class representative as representatives of the class; and 4. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just. Fresno State discriminates against female students and female student-athletes on a class-wide basis, so it must resolve that inequitable treatment on a class-wide basis, the Plaintiffs contend. California State University, Fresno is a public university in Fresno, California. It is one of 23 campuses in the California State University system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BCcBTj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. C ADDELL & C HAPMAN P.O. Box 1311 Monterey, CA 93942 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com - and - Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. Cary Joshi, Esq. Joshua I. Hammack, Esq. Lori Bullock, Esq. Nicole L. Ballante, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 Facsimile: (510) 436-0291 E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com cjoshi@baileyglasser.com jhammack@baileyglasser.com lbullock@baileyglasser.com nballante@baileyglasser.com CALIFORNIA: 4 Schools Can Intervene in Sweet Suit to Oppose Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THERESA SWEET, et al., Plaintiffs v. MIGUEL CARDONA, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-03674 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the motions to permissively intervene filed by The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Everglades College, Inc., American National University, and Lincoln Educational Services Corp. In the class action concerning the Department of Education's processing of student-loan borrower-defense applications, the four schools move to intervene to oppose the proposed settlement. The deadline for any further interested parties to move to intervene has come and gone. As discussed on the record in the hearing on preliminary approval, while the four schools have not met their burden of demonstrating they can intervene as of right, the Intervenors have satisfied the requirements for permissive intervention and may oppose the settlement. Judge Alsup notes that under Rule 24(b), a district court has discretion to permit intervention when the movant presents "(1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant's claim or defense and the main action." First, because the movants are not raising new claims and this is a federal-question action, the independent jurisdictional grounds requirement does not apply. Second, the schools' motions are timely. The schools all filed their motions around three weeks after the parties moved for preliminary approval on June 22. The relief provided by the proposed settlement and the inclusion of the schools in Exhibit C to the settlement triggered their interest in the action. Intervention to oppose the settlement will not result in any undue delay that will prejudice the parties. Third, the schools seek to intervene to object to the proposed settlement. They complain about violations of certain procedural "rights" should the settlement be approved. They further argue the settlement will cause reputational harm. The schools are included on Exhibit C to the settlement; the class members who attended a school on that list will have their federal student loans automatically discharged. Because the schools seek to address the subject matter of the settlement, the defenses they will provide in opposition to the settlement share common questions with the main action. Pursuant to Rule 24(b), Judge Alsup grants the motions to permissively intervene filed by the four schools for the sole and express purpose of objecting to and opposing the class action settlement. To be clear, intervenors have explicitly disclaimed, and the Order explicitly prohibits, any further discovery in the litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryh74me from Leagle.com. CARDONE TRAINING: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Handelsman v. Cardone Training Technologies, Inc. (CTTI), Case No. 1:22-cv-21398 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of deadline to Move for Class Certification. The deadline to move for class certification is extended through and including October 27, 2022 . No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances. All other pretrial deadlines shall remain in effect, says Judge Martinez. Cardone develops visual and audio products geared towards enhancing individuals' and corporations' production through sales.[CC] CERIDIAN HCM: Stockholder Suit in Ontario Court Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on October 21, 2021, a claim was issued by a purported stockholder, Bluemoon Capital Ltd., in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada. The claim is against the company, together with David Ossip, Chair and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Arthur Gitajn, former EVP and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, Gnaneshwar Rao, director of the company and Brent Bickett, director of the company, as well as certain third parties. The action, which is a proposed class action, alleges misrepresentations and negligence in connection with the disclosure made by the company in its April 25, 2018 Prospectuses (which were later incorporated by reference into the company's May 24, 2018 Interim Financial Statements and MD&A) regarding matters surrounding the company's distribution to its pre-IPO stockholders of its 50% interest in LifeWorks Corporation Ltd. On January 19, 2022, the Ontario court rejected the Norwich Application for discovery by plaintiff (equitable or discretionary remedy in Canada for disclosure of documentation to form an action), which had been filed prior to filing the class action on the basis that it did not meet the key criteria for pre-action discovery. Plaintiff has appealed this decision. Ceridian is a global human capital management software company based in Minnesota. CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Faces Homyk Suit Over Vasculitis Meds ------------------------------------------------------- ChemoCentryx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the company and its Chief Executive Officer were named as defendants in two putative shareholder class actions filed on May 5, 2021, and June 8, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These cases have been consolidated into the lead case, "Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc.," No. 4:21-cv-03343-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Homyk action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with statements regarding the New Drug Application for "TAVNEOS," and the underlying Phase III clinical trial, seeking an award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees. A lead plaintiff was selected on January 28, 2022, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 28, 2022. The company has moved to dismiss these claims and expects the motion to be heard sometime after August 12, 2022. ChemoCentryx, Inc. biopharmaceutical company based in California. CHINA WOK: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Lin -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAN LIN, v. CHINA WOK HILLSBORO, INC. d/b/a China Wok, JIAN YUN SHI a/k/a Jenny Shi, d/b/a China Wok, XIN HUA LIN a/k/a Sin Lin, a/k/a Sin H. Lin, HONG ZHANG a/k/a Nick Zhang, and FANG FANG LI a/k/a Fangfang Li, a/k/a Amy Li, a/k/a Elaine Li, Case No. 3:20-cv-03186-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment: -- Summary judgment is granted against Plaintiff and in favor of theg Defendants as to Counts II and IV of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and as to Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint with respect to Defendant Shi only. -- Counts I and III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint remain pending against the Defendants Zhang, Li, Lin, and China Wok Hillsboro, Inc., and Count V remains pending against all Defendants. -- The Plaintiff's motion to strike, which was filed as part of the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, is denied. -- The final pretrial conference and jury trial in this case remain as previously scheduled. Since July 2018, the Defendants have operated China Wok, a small dine-in, take-out, and delivery restaurant in Hillsboro, Illinois. Zhang and Li are husband and wife. Prior to July 2018, China Wok was operated by its owner, the Defendant Jian Yun Shi. After hiring Zhang and Li, Shi no longer took part in the management of China Wok but continued to own the restaurant. On October 20, 2018, Zhang and Li hired Plaintiff Han Lin to work as a waiter. The Plaintiff was 18 years old at the time. The details of Plaintiff's initial compensation are disputed, but the parties agree that most of Plaintiff’s income prior to March 21, 2019 came from customer tips. On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff stopped working as a waiter and began working as a cook instead. Starting on March 21, 2019, Zhang and Li agreed to pay Plaintiff a monthly salary in cash. The Plaintiff claims that this agreed monthly salary was $2500, while Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s monthly salary was $3000. The Plaintiff testified in his deposition that Zhang and Li did not actually transfer the full amount of Plaintiff’s wages to him on a regular basis, but instead held on to Plaintiff's wages and disbursed money to Plaintiff when Plaintiff requested it. Defendants Zhang and Li have neither confirmed nor denied that they maintained control of Plaintiff’s money during his employment at China Wok. On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff gave Zhang and Li notice that Plaintiff would be leaving China Wok. The next day, Plaintiff quit. In his deposition, the Plaintiff stated that he quit because he had secured a job at his older brother’s restaurant in Virginia. The Plaintiff also testified that he initially offered to continue working at China Wok for one week after January 8 but left on the 9th instead because of an argument in which Zhang and Li said that they would not give him the money that they had been holding for him if he left. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cX5ESX at no extra charge.[CC] CIMAR LLC: Faces Licea Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ---------------------------------------------------- JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIMAR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06454-MWF-JEM (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2022) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that without warning visitors or obtaining their consent, the Defendant has secretly deployed wiretapping software used in connection with the chat feature on its Website www.frontgate.com. Using its software, the Defendant covertly monitors, records, and creates secret transcripts of all communication through the chat feature on its website, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant has shared the secret transcripts with both eGain and Webex, third parties that publicly boast about their ability to help companies "harvest" highly personal data gathered about consumers using common collection methodologies. Consumers would be shocked and appalled to know that Defendant secretly creates transcripts of those conversations and transmits them to and shares them with third parties, the suit added. CIMAR, LLC operates an online retail store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CIRCA 1886: Littlefield Seeks Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA LITTLEFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CIRCA 1886, LLC a/b/a CIRCA 1886; 1886, LLC; MICHELLE WOODHULL, individually; & MARK SEVERS, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02716-BHH (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional collective action certification, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C section 216(b). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QwhaT5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER , P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com CLUB 360: Bazarganfard, Golan Seek to Certify Classes, Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR MEHER; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Golan asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting class certification under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) class: "All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in March 14, 2020 to June 2020 or July 2020 to September 2020 for fees at any of the Club 360 LLC, Valley Gym Corp., North Hollywood Fitness LLC and Van Nuys Fitness Center LLC gyms;" and 2. certifying a subclass (the "EFTA Club360 Subclass") against all Defendants consisting of: "All EFTA Class Members who were charged or caused to be charged for fees for Club 360 LLC's gym." Both Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class (the "UCL Class") against Defendant Meher for violation of the UCL and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"): "All persons in California who were charged or caused to be charged by Meher for fees at any of the USA Fitness gyms during the closures in March 2020 to June 2020 or July 2020 to September 2020." 2. certifying a subclass (the "UCL Club360 Subclass") against Defendants Meher and Club 360 consisting of: "All UCL Class Members who were charged or caused to be charged for fees for Club 360 LLC's gym." 3. granting injunctive relief; and 4. appointing them as Class Representatives and appointing their attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RRZUsw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CNX GAS: Municipal Water Authority Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY (MAWC) v. CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC and NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00422-CCC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this action as a class action. The Plaintiff seeks class certification of two sub-classes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), as defined below. -- Every person who is, or has been, a royalty owner under an oil and gas lease that leased oil and gas rights to real property in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the original Lessee named on the lease was Dominion Exploration and Production, Inc. or Dominion Transmission, Inc.; the past and/or present Lessee is CNX Gas Company, L.L.C. and/or Noble Energy, Inc.; and natural gas has been produced under the lease during the applicable time periods, with such persons divided into two sub-classes based on the following two claims: (1) Defendants CNX and/or Noble deducted a blended gathering fee from the gas royalties during some or all of the production months of October of 2011 through September of 2014, when only dry gas was produced under the lease (Class 1) (“the Blended Fee Class”); (2) Defendant Noble deducted electrical compression charges from the gas royalties during some or all of the production months of October 2012 through September 2014, even though the compressors that compressed the gas produced under the lease were powered by gas (Sub- Class 2A); and/or Defendant Noble deducted electrical compression charges from the gas royalties during some or all of the production months of October 2014 through December 2016, even though none of the four conditions allowing Defendant Noble to be charged for electrical compression under section 5.2 (d) of the 2014 Gas Gathering Agreement were met (Sub-Class 2B) ("the Electricity Sub-Classes"). This is a putative class action filed by MAWC against the Defendants for the underpayment of natural gas royalties. On January 10, 2002, MAWC entered into an oil and gas lease with Dominion Exploration and Production, Inc. that leases oil and gas rights to 2,255 acres in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. (the Lease). The current lessee under the Lease is Defendant CNX. From September 30, 2011 through December 31, 2016, Defendant Noble was also a lessee under the Lease. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4BdqI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan A. Meredith, Esq. Kelly L. Enders, Esq. CAROSELLI BEACHLER & COLEMAN, LLC 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4802 Telephone: (412) 391-9860 Facsimile: (412) 391-7453 E-mail: smeredith@cbmclaw.com kenders@cbmclaw.com - and - Robert C. Sanders, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. SANDERS 12051 Old Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Telephone: (301) 627-2300 Facsimile: (301) 574-2153 E-mail: rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Makeup Contains Harmful Chemicals, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KACEY WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLOURPOP COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-05198-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2022) is a class action concerning the Defendant's design, formulation, manufacture, marketing, advertising, distribution, and sale of eye makeup that contains color additives and ingredients that are dangerous when used on the immediate eye area. According to the complaint, the products at issue include eyeshadow palettes, which Defendant sometimes refers to and promotes as, inter alia, "shadow palettes," "pigment palettes," or "pressed powder palettes", and eyeliner products that are formulated with and contain certain color additives that are not safe for use in the eye area. The Plaintiff alleges that the products are inherently dangerous because they are formulated with and contain the following color additives: FD&C Red No. 4; D&C Red No. 6, 7, 17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36; D&C Violet No. 2; Ext. D&C Violet No. 2; FD&C Yellow No. 6; D&C Yellow No. 7, 8, 10, 11; Ext. D&C Yellow No. 7; D&C Orange No. 4, 5, 10, 11; D&C Green No. 6, 8; FD&C Green No. 3; D&C Brown No. 1; and/or D&C Blue No. 4, referred here as the "Harmful Ingredients." Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known that ColourPop Eye Makeup contains a Defect rendering it unfit for its intended purpose and that they are banned by the FDA, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid substantially less for the Products, says the suit. COLOURPOP COSMETICS, LLC designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells a wide range of consumer cosmetic products including but not limited to, eyeshadow, eyeliner, eyelid primer, and eyebrow pencils, nationwide, including in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com -and- Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com CONCHO RESOURCES: Class of Workers Certified in Corral FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL CORRAL, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCHO RESOURCES, INC., and CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 21-0390 KG/SMV (D.N.M.). Mr. Corral, an unspecified type of oilfield worker, who alleges he was improperly classified as an independent contractor, brings this lawsuit against Defendants Concho Resources, Inc., and ConocoPhillips Company (CPC) as Concho's bona fide successor, to recover unpaid overtime wages, as well as other damages provided under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). He alleges Concho was an oil and gas exploration and production company that operated in New Mexico and West Texas until it was acquired by CPC on Jan. 15, 2021. Corral alleges that CPC, for its part, is a global oil and gas exploration and production company, operating worldwide and throughout the United States, and is Concho's bona fide successor. As part of its business, Concho employed oilfield personnel. Corral contends he and other Concho drilling, completion, and production consultants "were typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time." Corral alleges he and these other workers never received overtime compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Moreover, Corral asserts that instead of paying overtime wages as otherwise required under the FLSA and NMMWA, Concho paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime, and that it improperly classified these workers as independent contractors. Mr. Corral and the proposed FLSA class seek unpaid overtime wages and other damages. Corral proposes the FLSA class be defined as "Individuals who worked as Wellsite Consultants and Supervisors (including Drilling, Completion, and Production Consultants) for Concho during the past 3 years who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime." In the instant motion, Corral argues Concho misclassified its "wellsite consultants and supervisors (including drilling, completion, and production consultants)" as independent contractors in order to avoid paying them overtime wages. He, therefore, seeks to allow his co-workers to receive notice of this collective action and to stop the statute of limitations from running on their back-wage claims. Corral makes no specific allegations or assertions with respect to his main job duties or the main job duties of those he claims are similarly situated. Indeed, he alleges simply that "the Putative Class Members performed substantially similar job duties related to oil and gas operations in the field" and that he performed routine manual and technical job duties. In his Motion, Corral contends that his job and the Putative Class Members' jobs "involved similar job duties related to oil and gas operations in the field, including observing drilling operations on the rig and ensuring that the team is following safety protocol." However, Corral attached Declarations from several opt-in Plaintiffs that provide slightly more detail. Each opt-in Plaintiff averred that he was regularly required to work in excess of a 40-hour workweek. Each declares he was a paid a day rate with no overtime. Each opt-in Plaintiff included a statement in his Declaration that he made no significant monetary investment to do his work; Concho provided the oilfield equipment he worked on; he relied on Concho to provide him work; and he was paid solely based on the number of days he worked. Mr. Corral asserts that all opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated because they all: (1) received a flat day rate for each day worked, regardless of the hours worked; (2) were all required or permitted to work overtime without receiving compensation at the legal rate of pay; (3) were all staffed to work for Concho; (4) were all employees of Concho that it mischaracterized as independent contractors; (5) were never guaranteed a salary; and (6) all performed work for Concho in the oilfield. FLSA Section 216(b) includes a provision allowing employees to maintain a collective action for overtime pay on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated employees. Mr. Corral seeks conditional certification of a proposed class of individuals who worked as "Wellsite Consultants and Supervisors (including Drilling, Completion, and Production Consultants) for Concho during the past 3 years who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime." Concho asserts that all opt-in Plaintiffs were actually employed by third-party vendors and that Wellsite Consultants, Completion Consultants, and Production Consultants perform materially different tasks at different stages of a project, meaning they are not similarly situated. Moreover, Concho contends Corral cannot show that he and the putative class members were subject to a single illegal pay decision, policy or plan. Judge Gonzales finds that Corral adequately alleges the proposed class all share a common primary duty of ensuring oil production, are classified as independent contractors pursuant to Concho policy, are paid according to the same flat day rate scheme, and are uniformly subject to Concho's regulation and control. He holds that these allegations are sufficient to meet the first-tier requirement for conditional class certification which requires nothing more than substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. Concho's arguments regarding the class members' titles/roles and third-party status apply more to a merits-based determination, which is not appropriate at this conditional certification stage, Judge Gonzales holds. However, concurrently with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted RUSCO Operating, LLC and Ally Consulting, LLC's Motion to Intervene (collectively, RUSCO). The Court also imposed a deadline for RUSCO to move to compel arbitration. Therefore, any person contracted with RUSCO is not included as a "putative class member" at this time. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Corral has made substantial allegations that the putative class members, excluding those contracted with RUSCO, are similarly situated and will grant the Motion for Conditional Certification. Concho argues that the parties should be required to meet and confer on the notice and method of distribution. Nonetheless, Concho objects to Corral's proposed Notice on the basis that it requires Concho to produce a list of names and contact information within ten (10) days of the Order, even though Concho "did not employ the potential class members and, as a result, does not maintain records with this sort of information for them." Concho argues Corral should bear the burden of gathering this information from the third-party vendors. Concho also challenges "the extensive amount of personal information" requested as "inappropriate" and implicating "potential privacy and identity theft concerns." Third, Concho argues that mail, email, and text message notification is unnecessary, and simple first class mail is sufficient. Along this line, Concho argues that text message notification is only appropriate when "there is proof that the defendant regularly communicated with the potential class members by text message," which does not exist here. Finally, Concho challenges Corral's proposed reminder notice to be issued after 30 days on the basis that Corral provided no justification for such notice. The Court disagrees. As an initial matter, time is of the essence in distributing the Notice, so the Court will not require further conference on the proposed Notice or method of distribution. Indeed, Concho does not challenge the content of Corral's proposed Notice at all. Therefore, the Court approves the Notice as submitted at ECF No. 30-1, except that the caption will be amended to reflect the correct judge assignment, to wit: "Case No. 2:21-cv-00390-KG/SMV." With respect to who should bear the burden of identifying potential class members, courts commonly order defendants to produce this information. Which purported third-party vendors Concho used to provide wellsite consultants, and the contact information for those consultants, is uniquely within Concho's control, Judge Gonzales notes. Those individuals contracted with RUSCO are expressly excluded. Concho need not produce information related to individuals contracted with RUSCO at this time. The Court is sensitive to divulging information of putative class members, but disagrees that dates of employment materially implicate privacy concerns. Concho will produce all available contact information, including mailing address, email address, phone number for text message communication, and dates of employment/work. Finally, the Court finds that a reminder notice is appropriate in this case and is routinely authorized in this district. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Corral has made substantial allegations that the putative class members are similarly situated. Therefore, the Court grants Canal's Motion for Conditional Certification and permits Corral to provide the proposed Notice to potential class members. Therefore, Judge Gonzales rules that the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted. The following collective is conditionally certified: Individuals, other than those contracted with RUSCO, who worked as Wellsite Consultants and Supervisors (including Drilling, Completion, and Production Consultants) for Concho during the past 3 years who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime. Judge Gonzales holds that 10 days from the date of entry of this Order, the Defendants will provide the Plaintiff's counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all putative collective members: a. Full name; b. Last known address(es) with city, state, and zip code; c. Last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); d. Last known telephone number(s); e. Beginning date(s) of employment/work; and f. Ending date(s) of employment/work (if applicable). Within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this Order, the Plaintiff's counsel will send a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the putative collective members by first class U.S. mail and by e-mail and/or text message. Putative collective members will have 60 days from the date of mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms to return their signed Consent Forms to the Plaintiff's counsel for filing with the court; Within 20 days from the date of entry of the Order, the Defendants are required to post the Notice and consent Forms on all jobsites that were previously Concho sites for 60 days in an open and obvious location. The Defendants may remove the notice after 60 days. The Plaintiff's counsel may follow-up the mailed Notice and Consent Forms with contact by telephone of former employees or those putative collective members whose mailed or emailed contact information is not valid. Thirty days from the mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms to potential collective members, the Plaintiff's counsel is authorized to mail by first class U.S. mail and e-mail and text message a second, identical copy of the Notice and Consent Form to the putative collective members reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent Forms. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vwa5rzc from Leagle.com. CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Dunn Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAMAYA DUNN, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act of 2004 v. CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL PARKING LA, INC., a California corporation; CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., a California 18 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29224 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2022) alleges that Corinthian International failed to comply with the California Labor Code, and restraints on competition, whistle-blowing and freedom of speech. The complaint asserts that the Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees working over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or seven straight workdays in a workweek without paying them proper overtime wages, as a result of, without limitation, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Alexander D. Wallin , Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com alex@tomorrowlaw.com EARGO INC: Faces Chung Securities Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that it is facing a class action lawsuit captioned "Chung v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, & Adam Laponis.," No. 21-cv-08597 (November 4, 2021, N.D. Cal.). Said class action seeks damages and other relief, brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021. In May 20, 2022, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purports to extend the class period through March 2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. Eargo, Inc. medical device company based in California. EARGO INC: Faces IBEW Local 353 Class Suit ------------------------------------------ Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that it is facing a class action lawsuit captioned "IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, Adam Laponis, Josh Makower, Juliet Bakker, Peter Tuxen Bisgaard, Doug Hughes, Geoff Pardo, Nina Richardson, A. Brooke Seawell, David Wu, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, & William Blair & company, L.L.C.," No. 21-cv-08747 (November 10, 2021, N.D. Cal.). The IBEW Local 353 action was brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo shares in or traceable to the company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock and/or shares of Eargo common stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021. On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class actions under the caption "In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purports to extend the class period through March 2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. Eargo, Inc. medical device company based in California. EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that class action lawsuit captioned "Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, & Adam Laponis.," No. 21-cv-07848 (October 6, 2021, N.D. Cal.) was voluntarily dismissed. Said class action seeks damages and other relief, brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021. In May 20, 2022, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purports to extend the class period through March 2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6, 2021. Eargo, Inc. medical device company based in California. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Sues Over ERISA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Guillermina Lopez, on behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01580 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The University offers a retirement plan to its employees. Eligible faculty and staff members may elect to participate in the Plan, which provides the primary source of retirement income for many former employees. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. As of December 31, 2020, the Plan had $491,424,400 in assets. Accordingly, the Plan has substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that are charged against participants' investments. However, instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, THE Defendant chose poorly performing investments, inappropriate, high-cost mutual fund share classes, and caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative services. However, to the extent that THE Defendant made any attempt to reduce the Plan's expenses or to prudently monitor and review the Plan's investment options, the Defendant employed flawed and ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the fees and expenses charged to Plan participants were reasonable, and (b) that each investment option that was offered in the Plan was prudent. The Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation of the ERISA. The Defendant's actions (and omissions) were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current Plan participant. The Defendant is a private, for-profit, nonsectarian university with its principal place of business in Daytona Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com EMPIRE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE SECURITY & PROTECTION, LLC; EMPIRE SECURITY CONSULTANTS, CORP.; EMPIRE SECURITY TRAINING GROUP LLC; and JOHN GALASSO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05449 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 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 Ward was employed by the Defendants as security guard. EMPIRE SECURITY & PROTECTION, LLC is a security and investigations company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 Email: Jason@levinepstein.com ENGRAINED CABINETRY: Manzo Seeks to Certify Class of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tony Manzo, et al., v. Engrained Cabinetry and Countertops, LLC, Inspired Closets of Arizona, LLC, and Thomas Corkery, Case No. 3:22-cv-8081-PCT-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: A. Conditionally certifying the collective proposed by the Plaintiffs: "All commission-paid employees since May 5, 2019;" B. Approving the use of U.S. Mail and email to distribute the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join; C. Approving the form and content for use in providing notice to the potential collective members; D. Directing the Defendants to produce the names and last known mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of each potential opt-in Plaintiff in an electronically importable and malleable format, such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order is entered; E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin seven days after the day that Defendants produces the names and contact information for the putative collective members, in which putative collective members may submit a Consent to Join this lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff; F. Granting the Plaintiffs leave to send a follow-up reminder Postcard via U.S. Mail or email, beginning 30 days after the opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to the Notice; and G. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorneys' fee and grant all other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not. The Plaintiffs worked as commission-paid Designers and Sales Representatives for Defendants Engrained Cabinetry and Countertops, LLC, Inspired Closets of Arizona, LLC, and Thomas Corkery. The Plaintiffs seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a result of the Defendants' policies and practice of failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation under the FLSA and the Arizona minimum wage law. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wYqAjt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. Joanie Harp, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com joanie@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by David C. Potts, Esq. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI P.L.C. 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 263-1708 Facsimile: (602) 200-7829 E-mail: dpotts@jshfirm.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ct. Sets Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Jackin ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL JACKIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, doing business as Enhanced Resource Centers doing business as ERC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- Mediation by Federal Magistrate Judge If the parties have not reached a resolution by January 26, 2023 the Court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Goeke for settlement purposes. In addition, the parties shall file a status report by February 9, 2023 regarding the settlement process. -- Add Parties and Amend Pleadings The parties shall, no later than October 6, 2022, file any documents related to the amendment of pleadings or the addition of parties. -- Class Certification Briefing Schedule A. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification no later than June 2, 2023. B. The Defendant shall file any responses no later than July 7, 2023. C. The Plaintiff shall file any reply no later than July 28, 2023. D. A class certification motion hearing shall be set with oral argument on August 15, 2023 at 9:00 AM in Spokane, Washington. -- Discovery Cutoff Generally All discovery, including depositions and perpetuation depositions, shall be completed by May 5, 2023. Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AX59Ai at no extra charge.[CC] EQUIFAX INC: Gordon Sues Over Inaccurate Low Credit Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Gordon and Brandon Meisner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03553-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant as a result of suffered injuries-in-fact because the Defendant disclosed inaccurately low credit information about them to third parties, often resulting in denials or worse terms for loans as a result of Equifax's reckless failure to implement reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its consumer credit reporting information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Americans rely on credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to provide accurate and complete data to lenders—indeed, Americans' very livelihoods depend upon it. Because Credit Reporting Agencies have so much power over our economic lives, Congress requires them to adopt reasonable procedures for reporting consumer credit information with the maximum possible accuracy. Unfortunately, Equifax failed in that duty. Instead of investing the money necessary to maintain reliable computer systems, Equifax relied on antiquated and error-prone "legacy" systems to report credit information on millions of consumers. It compounded the risks of using antiquated systems by writing faulty computer code that it then failed to adequately test before implementing. Equifax has not disclosed how long it relied on these shoddy practices, which fall well below the "maximum possible accuracy" standard that federal law requires. In the end, Equifax's reckless practices caught up with it. Between March 17 and April 6, 2022, Equifax misreported credit information on millions of consumers. Equifax admits that the problem stemmed from a coding error related to one of its antiquated "legacy systems." Equifax knows that its use of out-of-date computer systems is a problem, that developing patches to let these antiquated systems work with modern applications increases the likelihood of errors, and that failing to properly test its computer code further compounds the problem. Had Equifax simply followed standard software development practices, adequately tested its code before implementing it, or retired its legacy systems when they became obsolete, these problems never would have occurred, and Equifax would not have harmed Plaintiffs and millions of others. The Plaintiffs two of the many victims of Equifax's misreporting, had inaccurate and adverse credit information submitted to third-party lenders during their automobile loan application processes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are victims of the Defendant inaccurate lowered credit score reporting. Equifax Inc. is one of the three largest consumer credit reporting agencies in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Caplan, Esq. T. Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 596-5600 Fax: (404) 596-5604 Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9713 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com ehg@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com - and - Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com EQUITY BANCSHARES: Faces Customer Suit Over Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Equity Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that Equity Bank is party to a lawsuit that was filed on January 28, 2022, in the Sedgwick County Kansas District Court on behalf of one of its customers alleging improperly collected overdraft fees. The plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action. The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss this claim on its merits and on the grounds that the defendant must litigate any such claims in arbitration. Equity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in Wichita, Kansas. EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement System Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Evolent Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement was filed by the plaintiffs and is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020, a second amended complaint was filed on June 8, 2020, and a third amended complaint, now titled "Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley," was filed on December 2, 2021. On July 13, 2022, the parties to the class action executed a term sheet for settlement of the litigation, subject to documentation of the settlement and approval of the court after notice to class members. On August 2, 2022, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and related exhibits, including draft notice to class members and a proposed final order. The settlement stipulation is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Evolent Health, Inc. is a holding company providing integrated solutions to both health care providers, including independent physicians and health systems based in Virginia. EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Settles TCPA-Related Suit --------------------------------------------- Exp World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on November 19, 2021, the company agreed to settle a 2018 class action lawsuit filed against it alleging violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Pursuant to the proposed settlement agreement terms, the company will grant certain monetary and non-monetary settlements. eXp World Holdings is a holding company based in Washington State. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Campbell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Virgil Campbell, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-2498(DSD/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an order: (1) granting Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment; and (2) denying as moot Experian's motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff Virgil Campbell's expert witness. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) dispute arises out of allegedly inaccurate information on Campbell's credit report following his discharge from bankruptcy. Campbell filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota in April 2020. This petition was the second time Campbell had filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 (Campbell Dep. at 99:12-15). Campbell obtained a discharge on July 14, 2020. In July 2020, shortly after his bankruptcy discharge, Campbell requested a credit report from an online service called Credit Karma, which accesses reports from former Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services, LLC. These reports contained information about a lease for Campbell's pickup truck that had been discharged in his bankruptcy. The reports indicated that the lease was still outstanding, with a balance of almost $12,000, but did not state that Campbell was in default or otherwise not paying this obligation. On Sept. 21, 2020, Campbell (or someone acting on Campbell's behalf) requested a credit report from Defendant Experian. This report showed the lease as "open" and "never late" with a balance of nearly $12,000 as of March 2020. There seems to be no dispute that the discharge order did not specifically mention the truck lease, either as discharged or assumed. There is also no dispute that debts, such as truck leases, are not necessarily automatically discharged, as the Bankruptcy Code allows consumers to reaffirm debts, such as these, so that the consumer can retain the property. Mr. Campbell did not notify any of the credit reporting agencies that there was inaccurate information on his credit reports, as the reports they issue instruct. Rather, he spoke with his bankruptcy attorney, who referred him to his current litigation counsel. Less than three months after first requesting his credit report from Experian, and without ever having disputed the inaccurate information in his credit reports, Campbell filed this lawsuit against the three credit-reporting agencies. His complaint asserts that the agencies negligently and willfully violated the FCRA by reporting that his truck lease was still outstanding after his bankruptcy. Trans Union and Equifax subsequently agreed to settle Campbell's claims against them; only Experian remains. The Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered damages in the form of loss of credit opportunities, including credit denials, unspecified "credit harm" and "other financial harm." His pleadings contend that he was denied credit on several occasions in the fall of 2020 or was approved for credit at less favorable terms, ostensibly because of the incorrect credit reports. Mr. Campbell also alleges that he suffers emotional-distress damages in the form of "interference with daily activities," "emotional and mental anguish, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety." In support of these claimed damages, Campbell states that he has suffered "extreme distress, anxiety, frustration, and depression" and that his personal relationships have become strained. Experian initially moved to dismiss, arguing that that Campbell did not adequately allege that it failed to follow reasonable procedures in reporting on his credit status. Experian also asserted that the class action settlement in White v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. SA CV 05-1070, 2008 WL 11518799 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008), precluded Campbell's claim under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Court denied the motion, determining that Campbell had plausibly alleged that Experian violated the FCRA by inaccurately reporting the truck lease as open and carrying a balance despite knowing that Campbell's debts were discharged in bankruptcy. The Court also concluded that the White settlement did not preclude Campbell's claim. Experian now moves for summary judgment and to exclude Campbell's expert witness. Actual Damages The FCRA outlines the procedural and substantive requirements meant to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. To survive Experian's motion for summary judgment, Campbell must present evidence that: (1) Experian negligently or willfully failed to follow reasonable procedures intended to assure the accuracy of its report; (2) Experian reported inaccurate credit information about Campbell; (3) Campbell suffered harm; and (4) Experian's failure to follow reasonable procedures was the cause of that harm. Judge Doty notes that the issue of damages is dispositive, citing Peterson v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 21-2863, ___ F.4th ___, 2022 WL 3365130, at *1 (8th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022). Campbell alleges that he has sustained actual damages due to Experian's alleged misconduct because he was denied a Chase credit card and has suffered "severe emotional distress." The record does not bear out these allegations, Judge Doty says. Although Mr. Campbell pleaded that he had been denied credit on several occasions, discovery has revealed that only one new creditor, Credit One, sought information from Experian, after he sought pre-approval for a credit card in early November 2020. Experian did not furnish Campbell's credit report to Credit One, however; Experian provided only Campbell's credit score, a number which does not reference any of Campbell's debt history. In addition, one of Campbell's existing creditors made an account inquiry with Experian during the relevant time period, but Experian also did not provide that creditor with a copy of Campbell's credit report, and there is no indication that he was refused credit or otherwise harmed by this existing creditor's inquiry. None of the other credit inquiries initiated between September and December 2020 were provided with Campbell's credit report, and thus no creditor received inaccurate information regarding Campbell's truck lease, Judge Doty states. Mr. Campbell has submitted no documentary or other corroborating evidence showing that Credit One denied him credit because of the inaccurate Experian report. Indeed, the Credit One representative testified that it based its decision to deny him credit on Campbell's recent bankruptcy, his lack of credit history, how recently he opened accounts, and the fact that few of his credit-card accounts had high credit limits, not on any inaccurately reported information from Experian. Because the Plaintiff has not tied the Experian report to Credit One's (or any other creditor's) decision to deny him credit, the Court cannot conclude that he suffered actual damages in this way. Mr. Campbell's claim of emotional distress similarly lacks evidentiary support, Judge Doty finds. Campbell testified that he felt "stressed out and had a hard time sleeping" after first seeing his post-bankruptcy credit report in July 2020. He also felt embarrassed by the inaccurate information. He testified that he "was pacing back and forth and had to sit for quite a while to collect myself" on the day he first accessed his post-bankruptcy credit report and "probably three days afterwards." He described expressing his embarrassment, anger, and frustration with friends and co-workers in the days after he first accessed his credit report in July 2020. He notably did not testify that he suffered any further distress after receiving his credit report from Experian. Ultimately, Campbell testified that he was frustrated that Experian did not settle this lawsuit as Trans Union and Equifax did, because he felt like he should get something for all of the stuff he went through -- the embarrassment, the stress, the anger, just being humiliated. Mr. Campbell did not seek any medical or clinical help for his emotional distress. He did not see a therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, or spiritual advisor to discuss his emotional distress. Other than the difficulty sleeping for the first few nights after seeing his credit report in July 2020, Campbell did not describe any other physical symptoms of his alleged emotional distress. Mr. Campbell attempts to bolster his own vague testimony regarding his alleged emotional distress with that of other individuals, but a close examination of their observations shows that it was this lawsuit, and specifically Experian's refusal to settle Campbell's claims as the other agencies did, that led to much of the distress Campbell's friends and associates described. Judge Doty holds that Campbell has not shown that he has suffered any actual damages that were caused by Experian's alleged misconduct and summary judgment is, therefore, warranted. Statutory and Punitive Damages Mr. Campbell claims that he is also entitled to statutory and punitive damages because Experian willfully violated the FCRA. He specifically asserts that Experian willfully failed to employ reasonable procedures because it knew that his truck lease was discharged in bankruptcy but failed to update its report to remove that lease from his report. Again, Judge Doty notes, there is no dispute that the bankruptcy discharge does not mention the lease as either discharged or reaffirmed; to discover whether Campbell had reaffirmed the lease, Experian would have been required to make additional inquiry, either by delving into the bankruptcy record or requesting more information from the creditor. Courts have generally found willful violations in cases where agencies have intentionally misled consumers or concealed information from them. That is not the case here, Judge Doty points out. At most, Campbell's allegations establish that Experian negligently included inaccurate information on his credit report, Judge Doty holds. Even if taken as true, the allegations do not support a finding that Experian knowingly and intentionally disregarded Campbell's rights. Indeed, although the Court does not reach the broader issue of whether White fully precludes Campbell's claim, Experian's reliance on the procedures approved in White establishes that Experian's reporting was not willful or reckless. Because he has presented no evidence that Experian acted with a conscious disregard of his rights, Campbell is not entitled to statutory or punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n, Judge Doty holds. Judge Doty also holds that Campbell has failed to present sufficient evidence that he suffered actual harm entitling him to damages. As a result, his claim fails as a matter of law and summary judgment in favor of Experian is warranted. Accordingly, Judge Doty rules that: 1. The motion for summary judgment is granted; 2. The motion to exclude expert witness is denied as moot; and 3. The case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2x2b463p from Leagle.com. David A. Chami, Esq. -- david@pricelawgroup.com -- and Price Law Group, APC, 8245 North 85th Way, in Scottsdale, Arizona 85258, counsel for the Plaintiff. Eric A. Nicholson, Esq. -- eanicholson@jonesday.com -- and Jones Day - Detroit, 150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100, in Detroit, Michigan 48226, counsel for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. FITZGERALD MOTORS: Walli Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHER WALLI, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITZGERALD MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 156360981 (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir. Ct., August 29, 2022) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent several text message advertisements to his cellular telephone without obtaining his prior express written consent. In an attempt to drive business to its Florida-based car dealerships, the Defendant purportedly uses various approaches in sending text marketing campaign. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant intentionally obtained information about him, the identities of persons related to him, in order to determine what cars might be in their possession and used that information to further its marketing efforts. Like for example on July 20, 2022, the Defendant's text message was assertive that the Plaintiff owned a 2016 Ford Fiesta and purports to be willing to offer an "Instant Cash Offer" for the presumed vehicle. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant has used a system that involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, the Plaintiff says. According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited text message advertisements have invaded the Plaintiff's right to privacy. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease the sending of all text message advertisements involving an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers without first obtaining their prior express written consent. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages, statutory penalties plus pre-judgment interest and allowable costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and cost reimbursements, and other relief as may be appropriate, the suit says. Fitzgerald Motors, Inc. is a family-owned and operated car dealership serving the Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge region over 25 years. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Tel: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com FORD MOTOR: Court Won't Revisit Denial of Simmons' Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CLARENCE SIMMONS, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-81558-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 21, 2022 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In the Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs' claim for class certification was flawed in three principal respects: (1) Individual factual and legal issues predominated the Plaintiffs' claims; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that a class action is "superior" to other means of adjudication; and (3) the named Plaintiffs lacked standing to represent classes containing different vehicle models and different state laws. In their Motion, the Plaintiffs assert that "the Court committed manifest or clear error on issues of standing, ascertainability, predominance, damages, and superiority." They claim (1) the Court overlooked Article III standing precedent; (2) the Court's ascertainability ruling recasts the Plaintiffs' injury and directly contradicts Eleventh Circuit precedent; (3) the Court's Rule 23(b)(3) predominance holding misconstrues Rule 23 standards; (4) the Court's determination that the Plaintiffs' damages model defeats certification is contrary to controlling precedent and Rule 23 standards; (5) the Court's determination that Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority factors weigh against certification was manifest or clear error; and (6) Ford has made admissions of new facts since the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed. Judge Ruiz holds that the Plaintiffs' argument fails on the first prong of this test and the Court need not go further. Simply put, all of the alleged "new evidence" that the Plaintiffs cite in their Motion was available to them before the issuance of the Court's Order. Indeed, the Plaintiffs claim the source of the alleged "new evidence" was the Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the Defendant's Reply Statement of Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment -- both of which were filed more than four months before the Court issued its Order. The Plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate this fact by claiming that this information was provided after they filed, but before the Court had ruled on, their Motion for Class Certification. While this is true, Judge Ruiz says the Plaintiffs did not amend, nor make any attempt to amend, their pleadings to include information supposedly so significant that it warrants reconsideration of the Court's Order. Even if they had, the law is clear: new evidence must be newly discovered since the order, not the underlying motion. Thus, the Plaintiffs' request that the Court characterize this evidence as "newly discovered" for purposes of reconsideration is contrary to case law and does not provide an adequate ground for the Court to revisit its denial of class certification -- a decision that was reached after careful analysis of the record, as well as the parties' extensive briefing. In sum, Judge Ruiz holds that the Plaintiffs' arguments, much like their arguments in their Motion for Class Certification, "misapprehend" Eleventh Circuit case law. More importantly, their contrived interpretation of the law as it relates to class certification was rejected by the Court in its Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the present Motion provides no new grounds in support of reconsideration. Thus, the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mt97c3p3 from Leagle.com. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Trey Smith-Journigan Loses Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trey Smith-Journigan, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. Franklin County, Ohio, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of: "All detainees who, at the time of final judgment, have been placed into the custody of the Franklin County Correctional Center and/or Franklin County Workhouse, after being charged with misdemeanors, summary violations, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes, including failure to pay fines, who were immediately eligible for bail under Ohio law and the bail schedule and regulations mandated by the Franklin County Municipal Court, and who did not indicate, on the County's bail sheets, that they were unable to post bail." The class period commences on April 11, 2016 and extends to the date on which Franklin County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice, and custom of refusing to allow detainees to post bail upon their arrest, and requiring those same detainees to be strip searched. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendant and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees, or assignees. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Franklin County Correctional Facilities ("FCCF") "needlessly and illegally" detains thousands of persons who are arrested for misdemeanor offenses and who are entitled to post bail, and it uniformly subjects them unconstitutional strip searches. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated misdemeanor arrestees had the financial ability to pay bail at the time of arrest and that their paperwork reflected the same. Franklin County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BhwHls at no extra charge.[CC] FURNISHARE INC: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers, Genao Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Genao, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Furnishare Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07737 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2022) alleges that Furnishare violated New York State Labor Law by not paying their manual workers on a timely and weekly basis as required. The Plaintiff and the proposed class worked for Defendant moving furniture in the State of New York with titles including associate and operations supervisor, performing almost entirely physical labor, and being paid bi-weekly. Plaintiff Genao began his employment working out of one of Furnishare's warehouses located at 4100 West Side Avenue, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047 and delivering and picking up furniture from customers in New York County from December 2017 to April 2021 and was paid bi-weekly at all times. Genao and other Manual Workers need to be paid weekly to keep up with day to day expenses such as housing and transportation costs, groceries, utilities, and other regular bills, and in order to obtain the full value of their earned wages as due. Furnishare retails furniture online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com GAMESTOP INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GAMESTOP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01292-AJS (W.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2022) is a class action brought against GameStop for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.gamestop.com, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and for an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors. According to the complaint, GameStop procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on GameStop's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the GameStop website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code at GameStop's request, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all Pennsylvania citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through GameStop's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.gamestop.com and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. GameStop is an American video game, consumer electronics, and gaming merchandise retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com kelly@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com elizabeth@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COUNTS, et al., individually, and on behalf of THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-12541-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants seek a stay such that their responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification would be due 30 days after the Court's resolution of the issues raised in its FNC Show-Cause Order, if the Court does not dismiss the case; and Plaintiffs' replies in support of their Motion for Class Certification would be due 35 days after Defendants' responses. The General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cQQiiW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Renee D. Smith, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: renee.smith@kirkland.com The Attorneys for Defendant General Motors LLC, are: Renee D. Smith, Esq. Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. Jeffrey S. Bramson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: renee.smith@kirkland.com richard.godfrey@kirkland.com jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com - and - Michael P. Cooney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-6955 E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com Counsel to Defendant Robert Bosch LLC, are: William R. Jansen, Esq. Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Esq. Michael G. Brady, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP 2715 Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 546-6000 E-mail: wjansen@wnj.com jlauderbach@wnj.com mbrady@wnj.com - and - Matthew D. Slater, Esq. 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 974-1500 Facsimile: (202) 974-1999 E-mail: mslater@cgsh.com - and - William R. Jansen, Esq. Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Esq. Michael G. Brady, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP 2715 Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 546-6000 E-mail: wjansen@wnj.com jlauderbach@wnj.com mbrady@wnj.com GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO: Yarbrough Seeks Conditional Cert. of Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES YARBROUGH and VICTOR LOPEZ-REED, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current hourly laborers of Defendant Georgia-Carolina Stucco, Inc., to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other claims. The Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs ask this Court to conditionally certify the following collective: "All hourly laborers employed by Georgia-Carolina Stucco, Inc., since June 1, 2019." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RMNd2j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Matthew W. Herrington, Esq. DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com The Defendant is represented by Thomas L. Cathey, Esq. Hull Barrett, PC P.O. Box 1564 Augusta, GA 30903-1564 Telephone: (706) 722-4481 Facsimile: (706) 722-9779 E-mail: TCathey@hullbarrett.com GREYSTAR REAL: $4.665MM Class Deal in Wallace Suit Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina approves the parties' $4.665 million class settlement in the lawsuit titled KATRINA WALLACE, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV501 (M.D.N.C.). Before the Court is a Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, and an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives filed by Plaintiff Katrina Wallace. The Plaintiff was a tenant at the Defendants' apartments when she was charged a complaint filing fee, sheriff service fee, and an attorney fee when the Defendants filed a summary ejectment action against her ("Eviction Fees"). When the Plaintiff was late paying rent, the Defendants are alleged to have sent Collection Letters that threatened to charge Eviction Fees. The Plaintiff claimed both actions were unlawful, which the Defendants disputed. She filed the suit on June 13, 2018, alleging violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act ("RRAA"), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act ("DCA") and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"). The parties engaged mediator Robert A. Beason, who held mediations on Aug. 3 and Aug. 10, 2021. The parties reached an agreement regarding settlement subject to the Court's resolution of the Defendants' pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On Feb. 24, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims arising under the DCA and UDTPA. It granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and held that Defendant Greystar Management Service, L.P., is liable to the Plaintiff for violating the RRAA as a matter of law. Finally, it granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and certified the Plaintiff's Eviction Fee class. The parties reached a settlement on March 1, 2022, and the Plaintiff filed her Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certifying Class for Purposes of Settlement, Directing Notice to the Class, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing on March 31, 2022. The Court granted the motion on April 7, 2022, and preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing, (1) the Parties' Settlement Agreement; (2) the proposed Notices for mailing; and (3) the appointment of CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator. Consistent with the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court set the deadline for members of the certified class to submit claim forms, opt out of the settlement, or submit an objection. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court scheduled a fairness hearing for July 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair. Settlement Terms The Settlement Agreement establishes non-reversionary Monetary Relief composed of $4,665,000 in cash. The Monetary Relief will be used to pay Settlement Class Member Payments, any attorneys' fees, costs that the Court may award to Class Counsel, and any Service Award for the Class Representative. The parties have allocated the Settlement Fund to the two Settlement Classes as defined below: (1) Collection Letter Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter; and (2) Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees. Based upon the representations of the Defendants, there are approximately 7,034 potential Collection Letter Class members and 5,190 Eviction Fee Class members. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Collection Letter Class members are eligible to receive up to $50 for each Collection Letter sent to them by the Defendants up to a maximum of $150. Collection Letter Class benefits are available for those who file timely and valid claims. The Collection Letter Class was allotted $150,000 of the Monetary Relief, with any unclaimed amounts allocated to the Eviction Fee Class. Eviction Fee Class members will receive approximately $420 for each instance in which they were charged and paid Eviction Fees. Approval of Class Notice The Settlement Classes have been notified of the settlement pursuant to the plan approved by the Court. The Notice was accomplished in accordance with the Court's directive. The Notice program constituted the best practicable notice to the Settlement Classes under the circumstances and fully satisfies the requirements of due process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. Approval of Settlement The Court finds that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in accordance with Rule 23; was reached at arm's length without collusion or fraud; and satisfies all of the requirements for final approval. In short, the settlement is finally approved, and the parties are directed to consummate the settlement in accordance with its terms. Certification of the Settlement Classes The Court certifies the Collection Letter Class, and the Eviction Fee Class as follows: "Collection Letter Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter;" and "Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees." Based on the record before the Court, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Settlement Classes. In making all of these findings, it has exercised its discretion in certifying the Settlement Classes. Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agreed not to object to an award to Class Counsel of an amount not to exceed $1,555,000 of the Settlement Fund in attorneys' fees, or approximately one-third of the Monetary Award. The Class Counsel have provided a joint declaration specifying that they have incurred $24,893.92 in expenses in the prosecution of this litigation on behalf of the classes. The Court finds their expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred and, as a result, the Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses of $24,893.92 in addition to the $1,555,000 fee award. Service Award The Settlement Agreement provides that, subject to Court approval, Katrina Wallace will receive $10,000 for her service as Class Representative to be paid from the Monetary Award. The Court finds that payment of the service award is appropriate in this case in light of her work on behalf of the Settlement Classes and that no Settlement Class member has objected to the service award. The Court approves the service award, which will be paid consistent with the parties' Settlement Agreement. Cy Pres In the event that Settlement Class members fail to cash their checks within six (6) months of mailing and remaining funds are left over, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, all remaining amounts will be disbursed to the approved cy pres recipients: Legal Aid of North Carolina, United Way of North Carolina, and Public Justice. The Claims Administrator is ordered to provide a report to Class Counsel of all money left undisbursed within 15 calendar days after the 6-month period has elapsed. Order The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, and an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives are granted. Pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finally approves in all respects the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement, and the plan of distribution of the Settlement funds are in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate, and are in the best interest of the Settlement Classes. The Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,555,000 to be paid from the Monetary Award as set forth in the manner described in Settlement Agreement, which amount the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Class Counsel are awarded a reimbursement of their expenses of $24,893.92 to be paid from the Monetary Award. Katrina Wallace is awarded a reasonable service award of $10,000 to be paid from the Monetary Award. By reason of the settlement, and there being no just reason for delay, the Court enters final judgment in this matter and all claims alleged by the Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice. Without affecting the finality of this judgment, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and of this Final Order and Judgment, to protect and effectuate this Final Order and Judgment, and for any other necessary purpose. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the action is dismissed with prejudice as against the Class Representative, all members of the Settlement Classes and the Defendants. The parties will bear their own costs except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and as ordered. The Class Representative, on behalf of herself and members of the Settlement Classes, will be deemed conclusively to have compromised, settled, discharged, dismissed, and released any and all rights, claims, or causes of action against the Defendants as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/583445hk from Leagle.com. GROUP HEALTH: Order Modifying Class Cert Schedule Entered --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PLAVIN, GARY ALTMAN, MICHELLE DAVIS-MATLOCK and DANIELLE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GROUP HEALTH IN CORPORATED, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an stipulated order modifying schedule as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be Sept. 30, 2022 completed by: -- Plaintiffs' affirmative expert Oct. 14, 2022 report related to class certification, if any, are due on: -- Defendant's affirmative expert Nov. 11, 2022 report related to class certification, if any, are due on: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Jan. 6, 2023 Class Certification is due on: -- The Defendant's Opposition Feb. 17, 2023 to Class Certification is due on: -- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support March 17, 2023 of Class Certification is due on: Group Health is a statewide not-for-profit health insurer serving New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xdn2dk at no extra charge.[CC] GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Woodley Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Gulfport Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a motion to dismiss class action lawsuit against the company was granted and was appealed by the plaintiffs in March 2022. In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action against the company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R. Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper. On January 11, 2022, the court granted Gulfport's motion to dismiss and the case was closed by the court on February 14, 2022. The plaintiffs appealed the district court ruling on March 10, 2022. Gulfport Energy Corporation is a natural gas-weighted exploration and production company based in Oklahoma. HELLEN DELI GROCERY: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Alejandro Perez Acosta, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HELLEN DELI GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A HELLEN DELI GROCERY CORP.) and IVAN ARIAS, Case No. 1:22-cv-07489 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant by the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Hellen Deli Grocery Corp."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HENNEPIN COUNTY: Tyler Files Bid for Writ of Certiorari w/ Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GERALDINE TYLER filed on August 19, 2022, a petition for writ of certiorari - which was assigned case number 22-166 - asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case captioned Geraldine Tyler, Petitioner vs. Hennepin County, Minnesota, et al., Case No. 20-3730. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for alleged unconstitutional excessive fine, violation of substantive due process, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitution by selling her condominium for $40,000 to satisfy her $15,000 tax debt and failing to pay her the $25,000 surplus. The case is styled Geraldine Tyler, Plaintiff, v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-00889. On April 24, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted on December 7, 2020. Judge Schiltz ruled that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim on each count. On December 30, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On February 16, 2022, the Eight Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and agreed that there is no unconstitutional taking in both state and federal law. The Eight Circuit held that nothing in the Federal Constitution prevents the government from retaining the surplus where the record shows adequate steps were taken to notify the owners of the charges due and the foreclosure proceedings. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner GERALDINE TYLER is represented by: Christina Marie Martin, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 4440 PGA Blvd., Suite 307 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 E-mail: cmartin@pacificlegal.org HYATT CORP: Phase I Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to Close Nov. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO, an unknown association; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approves the parties' stipulation to amend the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order to continue the deadline to complete Phase I discovery to Nov. 2, 2022. The Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between Insixiengmay and Hyatt Corporation. The Court entered an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on Aug. 3, 2020, providing that Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action will be completed within 240 days (i.e., March 31, 2021). As a result of a prior informal discovery conference on Feb. 19, 2021, with Hon. Deborah Barnes, the Court suggested a stipulation and order to continue the factual discovery deadline, which was granted on Feb. 26, 2021, continuing the deadline to June 1, 2021. The Court further amended the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on May 25, 2021, to continue the Phase I discovery deadline to Aug. 2, 2021, to provide the Defendant with additional time to produce electronic copies of time and pay records for a sample of employees the parties agreed to, as it encountered difficulties in obtaining the requested data in electronic form. Thereafter, the Defendant continued to attempt to obtain and produce the data in electronic form but encountered additional difficulties. On July 15, 2021, the Defendant's counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel that it would produce time and pay records from its hard copies because it was ultimately unable to obtain complete electronic data. Because the Defendant needed additional time to produce the documents and because the Parties needed more time for depositions, the Parties submitted additional stipulations and orders to continue the Phase I discovery deadline, which were granted, making the current deadline Oct. 3, 2022. The depositions of the Plaintiff and the Rule 30(b)(6) designee of the Defendant have been completed. The Parties are meeting and conferring on items that arose during depositions, as well as discussing whether it would be beneficial to mediate at this time. The Parties would like to extend the deadline to complete Phase 1 discovery an additional 30 days for these discussions to exhaust. The Parties stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows: The Court's Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Document No. 54) will be further amended to continue the deadline to complete Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action to Nov. 2, 2022. The Court, having considered the stipulation and finding good cause, orders that the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Document No. 54) will be further amended to continue the deadline to complete Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action to Nov. 2, 2022. The Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will remain in effect in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2334yd from Leagle.com. Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Justin P. Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Brittany V. Berzin -- bberzin@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, in Elk Grove, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. Joseph W. Ozmer II -- jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- J. Scott Carr -- scarr@kcozlaw.com -- KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as both "Hyatt Corporation" and "Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt Regency Sacramento). I.Q. DATA: Removes Wong Suit to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of LETAN WONG, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of Broward (Case No. CACE-22-012607) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 12, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-61713-XXXX to the proceeding. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. is a medium-sized third-party debt collector. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Douglas A. Kahle, Esq. SCHWED KAHLE & KRESS, P.A. 11410 North Jog Road, Suite 100 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Telephone: (561) 694-0070 Facsimile: (561) 694-0057 Email: dkahle@schwedpa.com INDICAR OF DAYTONA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jones Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDICAR OF DAYTONA, INC. d/b/a DAYTONA MITSUBISHI, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01656 (M.D. Fla., Sept 11, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. INDICAR OF DAYTONA, INC. d/b/a DAYTONA MITSUBISHI sells new and used motor vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -and- Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 INSTANT BRANDS: Refuses to Warrant Pyrex Measuring Cups Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Devane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instant Brands LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04900 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendant refuses to honor the warranty for customers who seek coverage for Pyrex measuring cups products with markings that quickly fade. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's refusal to warrant the Product's markings is unfair and deceptive because the measurement lines are essential to its functioning and utility. The Product is sold with a "Limited Two-Year Warranty" which the fine print reveals only covers replacement in the event it breaks from oven heat. For the measuring cups which are not used in ovens, the warranty is misleading and without value. The Defendant's warranty instructions emphasize that the Product "is designed to be as versatile as it is long lasting," and that "cleanup is easy - just place your Pyrex (TM) glassware in the dishwasher," says the suit. The Defendant owns and controls the Pyrex brand, and is responsible for the production and marketing of the Product. The Defendant knows that customers like Plaintiff will put the Product in the dishwasher, and that when they do, a high percentage of the Products will experience faded and disappearing measuring lines. The Plaintiff did not expect the Product would degrade as rapidly as it did under normal conditions of use. The Product contains other defects, representations and/or omissions which render it defective and unfit for its purpose, such that its sale is unfair, false and misleading. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant, the suit alleges. As a result of the false and misleading representations and defective design and manufacture, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $24.99 for a 3 Piece Glass Measuring Cup Set, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit further asserts.[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 INWOOD HOSPITALITY: Ortega Sues to Recover Unlawfully Retained Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ianos Ortega, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. INWOOD HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC; 348 HUDSON RIVER PARTNERS, LLC; JAMES GOLDMAN; and any other related entities, Case No. 157476/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of the Defendants' catering venues located in the State of New York. Throughout the Relevant Period, documents including bills, menus, banquet event orders, invoices and other catering related items contained a Mandatory Charge assessed in connection with the administration of a banquet and/or catered event without disclaiming that the Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity for the staff. A reasonable customer would believe that the Mandatory Charge was in fact a gratuity for the Plaintiff and similarly situated service employees. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Mandatory Charge to the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in food service capacities at catered events. The Defendants operate catering venues located in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 JASON JACQUES: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jason Jacques, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jason Jacques, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07544 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jason Jacques, Inc. -- https://www.jasonjacques.com/ -- is a cutting edge gallery seasonally located in Chelsea, specializing in ceramic contemporary art and clay antiques from the 19th century onwards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Romoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Romoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00075 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 1, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03520-KSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 326-2128 - and - Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 - and - Richard B. Goetz, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 SOUTH HOPE ST 18TH FL LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 430-6000 Email: rgoetz@omm.com JOJO DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JoJo Designs, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JoJo Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07565 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JoJo Designs, LLC -- http://jojodesigns.com/-- is a wholesale company based out in Sunrise, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com K&G MEN'S COMPANY: Saint-Aubin Sues Over Unsolicited Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rony Saint-Aubin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. K&G MEN'S COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01583 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought against Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite disclosures required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Orange County, Florida. The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone solicitor."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that in December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed against Kandi Technologies and certain of its current officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi Technologies' securities prior to March 15, 2019. Kandi moved to dismiss this action in January 2022, and that motion remains pending. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of electric vehicle products based in China. KIA AMERICA: Zanmiller Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Zanmiller on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai America Technical Center, Incorporated, Case No. 0:22-cv-02149-PJS-JFD (D. Minn., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought arising from a defect in the Defendants' vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if they did not have the defect which was not disclosed to the Plaintiff. The vehicles are defective in that, among other things, Defendants manufactured and designed them without engine immobilizers, an electronic security device that makes it more difficult to start a vehicle without a key. This means that all a thief needs to do is strip the ignition column, exposing a piece that pops off, and then stick a USB drive, a knife, or some other similar tool to start the vehicle without a key or code. Once they do so, they can freely operate the vehicle, including the vehicle's steering and forward self-mobility. Considering how many people charge their cell phones in their cars, the necessary instrument needed to steal a Defective Vehicle is usually readily available to any thief. The Defendants did not disclose this defect, which is a material fact, and a fact that a reasonable person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle. The Defendants sold these Defective Vehicles at multiple locations throughout the state of Minnesota and the United States. The Defendants manufactured, designed, and put into the stream of commerce the Defective Vehicles. The Defendants did so without disclosing the fact that these vehicles had a defect which made them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if they did not have the defect. Even now, the Defendants admit there is a theft problem with these vehicles but refuse to fix them, compensate consumers, or otherwise take actions to solve the problems their Defective Vehicles are causing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Kia Sportage for personal, family or household purposes. Kia America, Inc. is engaged in the business of testing, developing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distributing, promoting, supplying and/or selling, either directly or indirectly, through third parties and/or related entities, the Defective Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George "Jed" Chronic, Esq. MASCHKA, RIEDY RIES & FRENTZ 151 St. Andrews Court, Building 1010 Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: (507) 625-6600 Facsimile: (507) 625-4002 Email: jed_chronic@mrr-law.com - and - Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C. 221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400 Independence, MO 64051 Phone: (816) 836-5050 Fax: (816) 836-8966 Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com cmp@hfmlegla.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Modifies Class Cert Bid Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul Martinez, et al., v. Knight Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah frimpong entered an order modifying the class certification motion deadlines as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended from December 5, 2022 to April 4, 2023; -- The deadline for Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended from February 7, 2023 to June 6, 2023; -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is extended from March 6, 2023 to July 7, 2023; and -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended from March 23, 2023 to July 27, 2023 10:00 a.m. Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services to customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AYjXyz at no extra charge.[CC] KOHL'S CORPORATION: Shanaphy Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Shanaphy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KOHL'S CORPORATION, MICHELLE GASS, JILL TIMM, MICHAEL BENDER, PETER BONEPARTH, YAEL COSSET, CHRISTINE DAY, H. CHARLES FLOYD, MARGARET JENKINS, THOMAS KINGSBURY, ROBBIN MITCHELL, JONAS PRISING, JOHN E. SCHLIFSKE, ADRIANNE SHAPIRA, and STEPHANIE A. STREETER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01016 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Kohl's securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials, which resulted to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the Company's stated goals; (ii) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl's had deficient disclosure controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, the Company's Board was able to and did withhold material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to the Company's annual meeting; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl's financial condition and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading. On May 19, 2022, Kohl's issued a press release announcing the Company's fiscal Q1 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11 (missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely edged expectations, and the Company's decision to cut its full-year earnings forecast. These results were at odds with the Defendants' representations regarding the successful execution of the Company's Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line growth and position the Company for long-term success. Further, the press release quoted Kohl's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Michelle Gass, who stated, in relevant part, "the year has started out below our expectations. Following a strong start to the quarter with positive low-single digits comps through late March, sales considerably weakened in April as we encountered macro headwinds related to lapping last year's stimulus and an inflationary consumer environment." Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC, "a long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of Kohl's", issued a statement addressing "this quarter's extremely disappointing results," which Macellum attributed to a "flawed strategic plan and an inability to execute." Macellum also stated that "the current Board appears to have withheld material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to this year's pivotal annual meeting," which "suggests to us a clear breach of fiduciary duty." On this news, Kohl's stock price fell $5.84 per share, or 12.97%, to close at $39.20 per share on May 20, 2022. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Kohl's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Kohl's operates as a retail company in the U.S. The Company offers branded apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products through its stores and website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com LAMOILLE HEALTH: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Patricia Marshall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LAMOILLE HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00166-wks (D. Vt., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack against the Defendant that allowed a third party to access Defendant LHP's computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal information belonging to thousands of current and former patients of LHP (the "Data Breach"). Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and more than 59,381 1 other victims suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient identification numbers, account numbers, financial information, health insurance information, medical information, and other protected health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and additional personally identifiable information ("Pll") that Defendant collected and maintained (collectively the "Private Information"). The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to a cyberattack. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to the Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Vermont who received a letter from the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer Stuart May, informing her that her Personal Information, stored on Defendant's computer systems, may have been accessed and acquired by unauthorized third parties. LHP is an integrated healthcare provider located in Morrisville, Vermont.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. GRAVEL & SHEA PC 76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Phone: (802) 658-0220 Email: mbyrne@gravelshea.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PPLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com LAZY DOG: Class Settlement in Sypherd Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHY SYPHERD, et al., v. LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00921-FLA-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando l. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order preliminarily approving the Collective and Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiffs include Cathy Sypherd, Patricia Brummet, and Kimberly Watt. On May 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought the instant action against Defendant Lazy Dog, a national restaurant chain, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated job applicants, asserting claims for age discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). 1. Rule 23 California Class Certification -- The Named Plaintiffs and their counsel satisfy the adequacy requirement for representing absent class members. This requirement is met where the named plaintiffs and their counsel do not have conflicts of interest with other class members and will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class. -- As each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met, the court preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes. 2. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement Collective Certification The court finds Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Settlement Collective members have satisfied their burden under the first step to demonstrate they are "similarly situated." See Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1100. The Defendant does not oppose Named Plaintiffs' arguments for purposes of the subject Motion. Thus, there is no need for the court to address the second step, as decertification is not at issue here. The court, therefore, preliminarily certifies the Settlement Collective members for purposes of settlement. 3. Fairness of Settlement Terms -- The court finds the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable as it was adequately negotiated, lacks obvious deficiencies, does not unfairly favor any member, and falls within the range of possible approval. -- The court preliminarily approves the settlement agreement with respect to Plaintiffs' collective claims under the ADEA, as the settlement appears to be fair and reasonable. The Plaintiffs allege Defendant engaged in discriminatory hiring practices against individuals 40 years of age or older for nonmanagerial front of the house positions, including hosts and hostesses, servers, and bartenders in violation of FEHA and ADEA (Covered Positions). The Defendant disputes and denies Named Plaintiffs' claims and contends it has complied fully with all applicable laws at issue in this matter. On October 1, 2021, the parties filed notice they had reached a tentative settlement of Plaintiffs' claims. Lazy Dog Restaurant is an American casual dining restaurant chain operating in California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3enFTeV at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY LATIN AMERICA: Faces Consumer Suit Over Broadband Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Latin America Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the Court of Appeals of Santiago issued a ruling joining the four class action complaints against the company. On August 25, 2020, its operator in fixed broadband and pay-TV, VTR, was notified that Chile's Servicio Nacional del Consumidor had filed a class action complaint against VTR in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago. The complaint relates to consumer complaints regarding VTR's broadband service and capacity during the pandemic and raises claims regarding, among other things, VTR's disclosure of its broadband speeds and aggregate capacity availability and VTR's response to address the causes of service instability during the pandemic. VTR was also notified in August about two additional class action complaints filed by consumer associations (ODECU and AGRECU) making similar claims and allegations. The class action complaint of ODECU was filed in the 21st Civil Court of Santiago, and the class action complaint of AGRECU was filed in the 26th Civil Court of Santiago. The complaint of SERNAC and ODECU seeks the Court declare that VTR has infringed the rules of the Consumer Protection Law; (ii) the responsibility of VTR for such infractions and, if so, establish the corresponding fines and compensatory and punitive damages. In the case of AGRECU, the complaint only seeks compensatory damages. On October 22, 2020, VTR was notified of a fourth class action complaint filed by consumer group CONADECUS in the 16th Civil Court of Santiago alleging that VTR did not adhere to certain call center, technical visit and service level requirements under applicable law. On April 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals of Santiago issued a ruling joining the four class action complaints into one legal procedure. Liberty Latin America Ltd. is an international provider of fixed, mobile and subsea telecommunications services based in Hamilton. LIMA ONE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADR1ASSIST, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LIMA ONE CAPITAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-05184-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting Adr1assist's motion to extend deadline to file class certification. After careful consideration of the parties' briefing, the Court finds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 16, and Local Rule 23.1 good cause exists here because Plaintiff Adr1assist was diligent, and the Scheduling Order deadline for class certification could not have been met "despite the diligence of Plaintiff." The date for Plaintiff Adr1assist, LLC to file its motion for class certification is extended until 30 days after the Court has ruled on Plaintiff Adr1assist, LLC's Motion for Leave to Filed Second Amended Complaint. Lima One provides money lending services to the residential real estate investing sector. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x2EGjY at no extra charge.[CC] LINCARE HOLDINGS: Merrell Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincare Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Cherry Merrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02020-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property. Lincare Holdings Inc. -- https://www.lincare.com/ -- is a provider of oxygen and other respiratory therapy services to patients in the home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (281) 488-8854 Fax: (501) 907-2556 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Dr. Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (833) 346-3587 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: sward@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com - and - David J. George, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Rd Ste 302 Lake Worth, FL 33467-2377 Phone: (561) 232-6002 Fax: (888) 421-4529 Email: dgeorge@4-Justice.com LIPOCINE INC: Faces Abady Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------- Lipocine Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah on November 14, 2019. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that its filing of the new drug application (NDA) for oral testosterone treatment regimen "TLANDO" to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants' statements about its business and operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action (for a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities from March 27, 2019 through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The company has insurance that covers claims of this nature. The retention amount payable by the company under its policy is $1.25 million. The company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on July 24, 2020. In response, the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22, 2020 and the company filed its reply to its motion to dismiss on October 22, 2020. A hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on January 12, 2022. Lipocine Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on metabolic and CNS disorders based in Utah. LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Settles McAlear Employee Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a class action settlement was granted by the court and became effective in June 2022. On March 12, 2021, a purported class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina captioned "Joseph McAlear, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. et al." The complaint alleged the existence of an agreement between the Company, nCino, Inc. and Apiture, LLC in which those companies purportedly sought to restrain the mobility of employees in violation of antitrust laws by agreeing not to solicit or hire each other's employees. The complaint alleged violations of Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act and violations of Sections 75-1 and 75-2 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, including treble damages, entitlement to restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 12, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle the case with a proposed class of all persons (with certain exclusions) employed by the Company or its wholly-owned subsidiary, Live Oak Banking Company, Apiture, Inc. or nCino, Inc. in North Carolina at any time from January 27, 2017, through March 31, 2021. In the agreement, the Company agreed to pay $3.9 million. On October 13, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court granted by order entered on November 23, 2021. After class-wide notice, the plaintiff filed a motion for final approval on March 28, 2022, which the court granted by order entered on April 28, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the settlement became effective on June 11, 2022. Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company based in North Carolina. LOGMEIN INC: Court Junks Wortman Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WORTMAN and KATHY FITCH, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOGMEIN, INC. and LOGMEIN USA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-11475-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification articulated in Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court says. LogMeIn offers remote cloud-based services, including "join.me" and "Pro," that allow users to share documents through the internet. The plaintiffs allege that, after they initially subscribed to LogMeIn's remote cloud-based services, LogMeIn renewed their subscriptions at higher prices than the ones they had initially agreed to. The plaintiffs further allege that they would not have subscribed to the services had they known that their subscriptions would be renewed at higher prices. They claim that LogMeIn's autorenewal practices violate Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which prohibits unfair and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs have moved to certify their proposed class. LogMeIn is a flexible-work provider of software as a service (SaaS) and cloud-based remote work tools for collaboration and IT. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ewsL7h at no extra charge.[CC] LOUIS MILUSNIC: Parties Seek Final Approval of Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD GARRIES; ANDREWYBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, in his capacity as Warden of Lompoc, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff-Petitioners Richard Garries and Andrew Ybarra, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Defendant-Respondents Bryan Birkholz, in his official capacity as Warden of FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc, and Colette Peters, in her official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prison, will jointly move and hereby do seek an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(e) and (h) granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement that was preliminarily approved by this Court, and granting Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees following that approval. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RuqW9R at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners Richard Garries and Andrew Ybarra, are: Jerry W. Bird, Esq. Dorothy Wolpert, Esq. Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq. Kate S. Shin, Esq. Oliver Rocos, Esq. Christopher J. Lee, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 1875 Century Park East, 23 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com dwolpert@birdmarella.com sbannett@birdmarella.com kshin@birdmarella.com orocos@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com - and - Naeun Rim, Esq. David Boyadzhyan, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: nrim@manatt.com dboyadzhyan@manatt.com - and - Donald Specter, Esq. Sara Norman, Esq. Sophie Hart, Esq. Patrick Booth, Esq. Jacob J. Hutt, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com snorman@prisonlaw.com sophieh@prisonlaw.com patrick@prisonlaw.com jacob@prisonlaw.com - and - Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. Peter Bibring, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org pbibring@aclusocal.org - and - C. Ryan Fisher, Esq. MANATT. PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14 th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 371-2500 Facsimile: (714) 371-2550 E-mail: cfisher@manatt.com LUCID GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Lucid Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the class action lawsuit against the company alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was moved to dismiss in February 2021. Beginning on April 18, 2021, two individual actions and two putative class actions were filed in federal courts in Alabama, California, New Jersey and Indiana, asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the company (formerly Churchill Capital Corp IV), its wholly owned subsidiary, Atieva, Inc. (now Lucid Motors), and certain current and former officers and directors of the company, generally relating to the merger. On September 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the New Jersey action voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit. The remaining actions were ultimately transferred to the Northern District of California and consolidated under the caption, "In re CCIV / Lucid Motors Securities Litigation," Case No. 4:21-cv-09323-YGR. On December 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action filed a revised amended consolidated complaint (the "Complaint"), which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased stock in CCIV between February 5, 2021 and February 22, 2021. The complaint names as defendants Lucid Motors and the Company's chief executive officer, and generally alleges that, prior to the public announcement of the merger, defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding the expected start of production for the Lucid Air and related matters. The complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action as well as compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on February 14, 2022. Lucid Group, Inc. is a technology and automotive company based in California. MACOLETTA LLC: Saavedra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luis Saavedra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MACOLETTA LLC (D/B/A MACOLETTA BRICK OVEN PIZZA), MACOLETTA II LLC (D/B/A MACOLETTA BRICK OVEN PIZZA), and WALID IDRISS, Case No. 1:22-cv-05250 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a pizza cook at the restaurant by the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located in Astoria, New York under the name "Macoletta Brick Oven Pizza."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MACROGENICS INC: Shareholder Suit Over Breast Cancer Meds Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Macrogenics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in September 13, 2019, by Todd Hill naming the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Karrels, as defendants was dismissed. The company allegedly made false and materially misleading statements regarding the company's SOPHIA trial, a randomized, open-label Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating "MARGENZA" plus chemotherapy compared to trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2020. On September 29, 2021, the District Court issued an Order dismissing the case, with prejudice. On October 28, 2021 the Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is now pending in the Fourth Circuit. Macrogenics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Maryland. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Walker Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Walker, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION and MPLX, LP, case No. 2:22-cv-01273-NR (W.D. Pa., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant did not pay their employees overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, the Defendant pays its Inspectors a flat daily rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's day rate plan violates the FLSA because the Inspectors are owed overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Marathon as an Environmental Inspector. Marathon Petroleum is a leading, integrated, downstream energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com MARCO STORE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marco Store, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Marco Store, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07561 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marco Store, LLC was founded in 2008. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of children's and infants' clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MASSACHUSETTS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Roe v. Baker, Schools ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NANCY ROE, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of A.R.; AMY MARANVILLE, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of P.M.; MARIA POPOVA, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of S.P.; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CHARLES BAKER, in his official capacity as Governor of Massachusetts; MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; BROOKLINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; SOMERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; WELLESLEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; JEFFREY C. RILEY, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Schools; JAMES MARINI, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Brookline Public Schools; MARY SKIPPER, in her official capacity as the Superintendent of Somerville Public Schools; and DAVID LUSSIER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Wellesley Public Schools, Civil Action No. 21-11751-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: (i) denies the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; and (ii) allows the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint. The Plaintiffs -- the parents and guardians of three pupils with disabilities -- allege that their children were denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Massachusetts public schools they attended suspended in-person learning and offered virtual instruction in its stead. Plaintiffs allege that the switch to remote learning violated the student placement procedural safeguards mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1401 et seq. On March 15, 2020, Governor Baker ordered all Massachusetts public schools to close in response to the exploding COVID-19 pandemic. The closure order was later extended through the end of the 2019-2020 academic year. During the 2020-2021 school year, the state's public schools offered a mix of remote, hybrid, and in-person learning models. Nancy Roe is the parent and guardian of A.R., a student in the Brookline Public School District (BPS). A.R. was age sixteen in March of 2020. A.R. has an emotional impairment and "struggles with work production, anxiety, and attention." "A.R. requires vocational skills consultations, academic support consultations, socialemotional support consultations, direct academic support, and direct socialemotional support to accommodate her disability so she can receive a FAPE." A.R.'s IEP does not specify whether instruction and services will be in-person or virtual. From March 13, 2020, until March of 2021, A.R. attended school from home receiving virtual instructions and support services. BPS did not provide prior notice or seek Roe's input in switching A.R. to remote education. Amy Maranville is the parent and guardian of P.M., a student in the Somerville Public School District (SPS). P.M. was age three in March of 2020. P.M. has autism and "struggles with adaptive skills, social skills, and communication skills." P.M. requires "direct, special academic instruction, speech-language therapy, and social services to accommodate his disability to receive a FAPE." P.M.'s IEP does not specify whether instruction and services will be in-person or virtual. From March 12, 2020, until April of 2021, P.M. attended school from home receiving virtual instructions and support services. SPS did not provide prior notice or seek Maranville's input in switching P.M. to remote education. Maria Popova is the parent and guardian of S.P., a student in the Wellesley Public School District (WPS). S.P. was age seventeen in March of 2020. S.P. has a health impairment and "struggles with functional academics, social skills, communication skills, and attention." S.P. requires "direct accommodations and special academic instruction to accommodate his disability so he can receive a FAPE." S.P.'s IEP recommends that he "continue to receive direct support from a special education teacher," although it does not specify whether this support will be in-person or virtual. From March 13, 2020, until October of 2020, S.P. attended school from home receiving virtual instruction and support services. WPS did not provide prior notice or seek Popova's input in switching S.P. to remote education. In their putative class action Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants -- Governor Baker, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), and its commissioner (collectively "State Defendants"); and Brookline Public Schools, Somerville Public Schools, Wellesley Public Schools, and their respective superintendents (collectively "School Defendants") -- breached the IDEA's procedural safeguards by: (1) not providing parents prior notice in advance of the switch to remote schooling; (2) unilaterally altering the students' educational placement for more than ten days; (3) failing to reconvene IEP meetings before altering the students' educational placements; and (4) engaging in disability-based discrimination by denying equal access to educational services. Plaintiffs assert violations of the IDEA (Count I) and an associated regulation, 603 C.M.R. 28.08 (Count II); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794 (Count III); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 (Count IV); equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count V); substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count VI); and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint. On behalf of themselves and all putative class members, the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from future switchovers to remote learning without first engaging in the IEP process. They contend that the abrupt transition from in-person to remote schooling for a period in excess of ten days triggered an automatic injunction. Relying on language in N.D. ex rel. parents acting as guardians ad litem v. Hawaii Dep't of Educ., 600 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2010), they characterize remote schooling as a change in the students' educational placement. Judge Stearns recognizes, as the Plaintiffs contend, that "a person exposed to a risk of future harm may pursue forward-looking, injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, at least so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and substantial." However, there are no present indications that the Defendants, having provided full-time in-person instruction in the 2021-2022 school year, have any intention of voluntarily returning to remote education even in light of medical evidence that more infectious, if less lethal, variants of the virus are beginning to emerge. In other words, the Court has no adequate basis on which to enter an order of prospective relief. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' FAPE-based claims (for alleged violations of the IDEA and its regulations, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Section 1983) must be dismissed because they have failed to exhaust the applicable administrative remedies. The Plaintiffs assert that exhaustion is not required for systematic allegations such as theirs, or in the alternative, exhaustion is futile because the BSEA does not have the authority to effectuate the systematic relief they seek. Judge Stearns holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any "systemwide violation" that could plausibly "relax or waive" the exhaustion requirement. To the extent that they allege that the remote schooling experience did not provide a FAPE tailored to the specific needs of their children, they have identified no basis for an exceptional personal exemption from the exhaustion requirement. Because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their FAPE-based claims. Finally, Judge Stearns agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not stated a viable civil RICO claim. The Defendants could hardly have deceived the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) regarding the provision of a FAPE through remote schooling where remote instruction and services were explicitly encouraged and permitted by USDOE guidance. Nor is there a causal link between plaintiffs' alleged harm -- the deprivation of a FAPE -- and any statements defendants made to the USDOE. The Defendants' alleged misrepresentations to the USDOE did not bring about the switch to remote schooling (the pandemic did). Judge Stearns concludes that in 2020 and 2021, the Governor and school officials closed schools in response to a new and alarming pandemic. They made these decisions without the hindsight that we now have, two and half years later. While the Court is sympathetic to the fact that the lengthy period of remote schooling was difficult for the Plaintiffs and their children, as it was for many other students and their families, the Complaint has not identified any legal basis to lay the blame at the Defendants' door. For the foregoing reasons, he denies the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and allows the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wtw2a5n from Leagle.com. MAUNE CONTEMPORARY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maune Contemporary, LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Maune Contemporary, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07524 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Maune Contemporary -- https://www.maune.com/ -- is an art gallery and dealer specializing in limited edition prints and unique works by internationally renowned artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal MCGUIRE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES JONES; and ALEXIS JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE McGUIRE GROUP, INC.; BROOKHAVEN HEALTH CARE FACILITY, LLC; GARDEN GATE HEALTH CARE FACILITY, LLC; AUTUMN VIEW HEALTH CARE FACILITY, LLC; NORTH GATE HEALTH CARE FACILITY, LLC; SENECA HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC; and HARRIS HILL NURSING FACILITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-05389-RPK-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendants as maintenance aide. Plaintiff Jenkins was employed as dietary aide. THE MCGUIRE GROUP provides health care services. The Company provides nursing, memory, respite, and short term care, as well as rehabilitation and pulmonary services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com -and- Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -and- Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com MCKESSON CORPORATION: Saut Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson Corporation. The case is styled as Sovatana Saut, John Hisato Nakatani, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 22STCV28690 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." McKesson Corporation -- https://www.mckesson.com/ -- is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care management tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com MCSS REST: Class Settlement in Mendez Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATALINO MENDEZ, EDUARDO CHOCOJ and ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCSS REST. CORP., AL-KEN CORP. d/b/a CROSS BAY DINER, MIKO ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a PARKVIEW DINER, MICHAEL SIDERAKIS, CHRISTOS SIDERAKIS and KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:16-cv-02746-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Roanne L. Mann entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement and approval of class counsel's fees and costs. The Settlement Fund will be funded by Defendants in accordance with the two payment distributions. The First Payment Distribution shall be funded by Defendant Siklas in the amount of $5,000.00 and in the amount of $200,000.00 by the remaining Defendants by check or wire transfer by 30 days after entry of this Final Approval Order. The Second Payment Distribution shall be funded by Defendants, other than Defendant Siklas, in the form of 18 postdated checks, each in the amount of $16,666.66, to be deposited by the Settlement Administrator on a monthly basis beginning no later than 30 days after payment of the First Payment Distribution and concluding no later than 18 months form the date of the First Payment Distribution. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owned and operated Cross Bay Diner in Queens, New York and Parkview Diner in Brooklyn, New York and failed to pay employees the correct statutory minimum wage and overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to pay spread-of-hours premiums for days in which employees worked a shift or split-shift in excess of 10 hours in a day, failed to correctly compensate them for uniform expenses, and failed to provide wage statements and wage notices, in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiffs commenced the Action on May 31, 2016 as a putative class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and as a collective action under the FLSA by filing the Collective and Class Action Complaint. The Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 1, 2016, disputing the material allegations. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cNW6d6 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Dennis Testimony in Gearshift Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 16-md-02744, MDL No. 2744 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to exclude consumer survey testimony by the Plaintiffs' expert, J. Michael Dennis. In this third and final round of motions to exclude expert testimony in advance of the class issue trial, the Defendant moves to exclude consumer survey testimony by Dr. Dennis. Although Dr. Dennis recently was named as an expert to replace Dr. Justine Hastings, the parties represent that Dr. Dennis has adopted Dr. Hastings's methodology and opinions in toto, and that his testimony will be congruent in every way to the opinions that Dr. Hastings was retained to offer. The Defendant's challenge focuses entirely on alleged deficiencies in Hastings' survey methods, and no separate challenge has been raised based on the change in the trial roster. It previously challenged Dr. Hastings' opinions at the class certification stage of the case, a challenge the Court rejected. The case concerns alleged defects in the Defendant's "monostable gearshift" device which was used in certain models of cars made by FCA US, LLC in the 2012-2014 timeframe. This multi-district litigation has been pending before the Court since its initiation by order of the JPML in 2016. After years of class-related discovery and multiple rounds of dispositive motion practice, the Court certified an issues class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) to proceed to trial on three certified questions of fact pertinent to all of the economic loss claims asserted by plaintiffs in 21 of the 23 jurisdictions implicated by the consolidated amended class action complaint. The three issues certified for the common issues trial are: a. Whether the monostable gear shift has a design defect that renders the class vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of providing safe transportation. b. Whether the defendant knew about the defect and concealed its knowledge from buyers of the class vehicles. c. Whether information about the defect that was concealed would be material to a reasonable buyer. The Plaintiffs originally hired Dr. Hastings, an economist, to testify about economic methodologies utilizing common evidence to demonstrate that members of the proposed class have incurred an economic impact as a result of the allegedly defective shifter. The Defendant contends that Dr. Hastings' opinions, adopted by Dr. Dennis, should be excluded because the survey used by Dr. Hastings cannot replicate "real life" experiences in the dealer showroom and therefore are not reliable, the survey is defective in its form, and the survey produced "absurd" results. Dr. Hastings's extensive academic qualifications as an economist and consumer behavior expert were discussed thoroughly in the Court's previous opinion holding that her testimony was admissible on the question whether a reliable method could be employed to estimate point-of-sale damages for the proposed consumer class. The Defendant raises no challenge to the qualifications of the plaintiffs' substitute expert (Dr. Dennis) to opine on the same topics previously identified in Dr. Hastings' report. Moreover, the parties represent that Dr. Dennis's testimony will mirror in all respects the testimony that Dr. Hastings would have given. Defendant's challenges to the testimony focus entirely on -- and explicitly are directed to -- alleged defects in "Dr. Hastings's methods." The Defendant insists that because Dr. Hastings's previously disclosed opinions should have been excluded, so should Dr. Dennis' testimony, which adopts them. Notably, there is no dispute presented about the adoption of Dr. Hastings' work by Dr. Dennis as such. During the class certification proceedings, the Court considered Dr. Hastings' opinion that a reliable and probative survey could be designed using a "conjoint analysis" method to estimate point-of-sale damages for the proposed class. Since that opinion was issued, Dr. Hastings deployed her proposed survey, the results of which were described in her subsequent report. The survey involved more than 3,000 participants selected by a market research firm according to criteria supplied by Dr. Hastings. The respondents were asked to contemplate choosing a 2019 model year car to replace their current vehicle, selected from among hypothetical vehicles with various combinations of six different attributes and with a range of discrete prices. Dr. Hastings concluded in pertinent part that, "in the but-for world in which buyers knew about the alleged defects before they purchased or leased the Class Vehicles, but-for prices of the Class Vehicles would have been at least 20.8% lower than actual prices for both SUVs and sedans." The Plaintiffs propose to submit the survey results at the issue trial as relevant to the question whether knowledge of the alleged defect would be material to a reasonable consumer; they do not propose to admit any of the other extensive computations relating to the estimate of class-wide damages. First, the Defendant argues that the testimony is irrelevant because a survey cannot account for the "real life" experience that consumers face when visiting a showroom and selecting a vehicle in person, because it would not include the "hands on" experience that consumers have when viewing and driving an automobile that they are considering buying. It also contends that the survey is not reliable because it failed accurately to convey the "magnitude of risk" associated with the "possibility of gear shifter issues." And it argues that the "absurd" results of the calculations of willingness to pay based on the survey data demonstrate that the survey method is fundamentally flawed. Dispelling any notion that the testimony is irrelevant to any certified issue, Judge Lawson opines that it is clear that the opinion that consumers significantly would discount the value of vehicles with a known gear shift defect that could cause rollaway incidents is relevant to the certified trial question of whether knowledge of the alleged defect would be material to a reasonable buyer. Moreover, the Defendant's criticisms against the survey design manifestly are directed to the weight and not the admissibility of the opinion. As the Court previously observed, "the Defendant has not identified any significant way in which Dr. Hastings' proposed analysis deviates from the usual principles by which conjoint analysis surveys are designed," and "all of the criticisms directed at the propriety of the assumptions made by Dr. Hastings and the parameters of her survey design merely impeach the factual basis of the opinion and not the reliability of her methods." Thus, it concluded that "the Defendant has not demonstrated that exclusion of Dr. Hastings's testimony is warranted under Daubert, because all of its objections go to the soundness of certain underlying factual assumptions or to the weight of her analysis, questions that are properly for the fact finder to consider. The Defendant's argument that the survey failed adequately to convey the "magnitude of the risk" because the questions did not convey any quantitative estimate of incidence of rollaway accidents is misplaced because the assessment of materiality does not depend solely on the rate at which incidents occur, and a sufficiently serious risk can be material even if the incidence is extremely low. Moreover, this criticism is, again, according to Judge Lawson, directed properly to the weight of the testimony concerning the factual basis of the survey analysis and not its admissibility. Finally, the Defendant's contention that the survey misrepresented the nature of the defect is remarkably disingenuous when one considers that the survey wording closely tracked the language describing the defect in the Defendant's own 2016 recall notice. The survey described the nature of a postulated gear shift issue. Hence, the Defendant's position that such language "misstated" the nature of the defect is not supported by the record. Judge Lawson concludes that the Defendant's criticisms of the survey design, as previously held by the Court at the class certification phase of the case, all bear on the weight and not the admissibility of the survey evidence. It has failed to show that the testimony is unreliable or irrelevant. Accordingly, the motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dennis is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k7n7am2 from Leagle.com. MELLOW MONKEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mellow Monkey, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mellow Monkey, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07534 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mellow Monkey -- https://mellowmonkey.com/ -- offers on trend decor, home accents, and gifts featuring a curated blend of offerings from international designers to local artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com META PLATFORMS: Klein Parties to File Revised & Redacted Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California directed the Plaintiffs and Meta to file a revised redacted version of the first amended consolidated advertiser class action complaint and discovery letter briefs, and unredacted versions of the motion to dismiss briefing on ECF. Judge Donato notes that judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default. The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the "fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing." The Plaintiffs and Meta filed sealing motions in connection with the FAC, motion to dismiss briefing, and discovery letter briefs. As required by Civil Local Rule 79-5, the Plaintiffs filed the initial notice of sealing for documents obtained during discovery that had been designated as confidential under the protective order entered in the case. Civil Local Rule 79-5 required Meta, the party that produced the documents, to state why they should be sealed, and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. Meta filed declarations to state why the documents it produced should be sealed. For Meta's proposed redactions in the FAC and motion to dismiss briefing, Meta says that information disclosed in the documents should be redacted because it contains details about contract terms and negotiations, and their disclosure would put Meta and its counterparties at a competitive disadvantage. Judge Donato holds that it has met its burden for a small subset of the information it seeks to redact, and the specific sealing determinations are stated in the attached chart. He grants sealing for portions that expressly quote contract terms. He declines to redact general descriptions of the agreement that the parties to a contract reached. For the proposed redactions to the discovery letter briefs, Meta seeks to redact only non-officer employee names and email addresses. It says that disclosure of the information would be an invasion of privacy for the individual employees. The redactions of email addresses are narrowly tailored and meet the standard for sealing, Judge Donato holds. The "default posture of public access prevails" for the documents that the Court declines to seal. The Plaintiffs and Meta are directed to file a revised redacted version of the FAC and discovery letter briefs, and unredacted versions of the motion to dismiss briefing on ECF within seven court days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mku25 from Leagle.com. META PLATFORMS: Naugle Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Kim Naugle and Afrika Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., WAKEMED, Case No. 1:22-cv-00727 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2022), is brought on behalf of themselves and millions of other Americans whose medical privacy has been violated by Facebook's Pixel tracking tool. The Defendants know (or should have known) that Facebook's Pixel tracking tool is being improperly used on hospital websites, resulting in the wrongful, contemporaneous, re-direction to Facebook of patient communications to register as a patient, sign-in or out of a supposedly "secure" patient portal, request or set appointments, or call their provider via their computing device. This unlawful transmission and collection of data is done without the knowledge or authorization of the patients, like Plaintiffs, in violation of Defendants' contracts with their users/patients, as well as in violation of various federal and state laws. When a patient communicates with a health care provider's website where the Facebook Pixel is present on the patient portal login page, the Facebook Pixel source code causes the exact content of the patient's communication with their health care provider to be re-directed to Facebook in a fashion that identifies them as a patient. In the course of receiving medical care at WakeMed, the Plaintiffs have used WakeMed's "MyChart" patient portal to review their lab results, make appointments, and communicate with her providers. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, and millions of other patients around the country, when they signed into their patient portals, the Facebook Pixel secretly deployed on the webpage sent to Facebook the fact that they had clicked to sign-in to the patient portal, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs use of WakeMed's MyChart patient portal included the time during which the Facebook Pixel was secretly deployed on the portal login page. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Burke, Esq. James Harrell, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP 2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Phone: (366) 333-9899 Email: phburke@crumleyroberts.com jrharrell@crumleyroberts.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com mkberg@locklaw.com MHF 5TH AVE: Faces Kauser Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMAD KAUSER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. MHF 5TH AVE., LLC, MHF PITKIN LLC, and ASHISH PARIKH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05121 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff has worked at the Defendants' fast-food restaurants, known as "Taco Bell," as a crew member from on or around May 2021 through and including June 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not compensate him and others similarly situated employees for all hours they have worked because the Defendant employed a policy and practice commonly known as "time shaving." Specifically, the Defendants would force the Plaintiff to "clock-in" at around 9:00 a.m. although their morning shifts would start at approximately 8:30 a.m., and to "clock-out" at around 6:00 p.m. although their shifts would end at approximately 7:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated employees were not paid 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., says the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendants failed to post notice regarding wages as required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees with wage statement, and with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL, the suit added. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, and statutory damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. MHF 5th Ave., LLC and MHF Pitkin LLC operate fast-food restaurants. Ashish Parikh is the owner and operator of the Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street., Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com MICHAELS STORES: Faces DeLaRosa Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer DeLaRosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 157044533 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 8, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue, the lawsuit says. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3), defined as: "All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) without "prior express consent" as defined by Fla. Stat. section 501.059(1)(g), (4) on or after July 1, 2021." Michaels is a privately held chain of 1,252 American and Canadian arts and crafts stores, as of January 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com MODIVCARE INC: Faces Farah Suit in Missouri Court ------------------------------------------------- ModivCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that in August 6, 2020, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, the company's subsidiary now known as ModivCare Solutions, LLC, was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed against it by Mohamed Farah, the owner of transportation provider Dalmar Transportation, in the Western District of Missouri, seeking to represent all non-employee transportation providers contracted with ModivCare Solutions. The lawsuit alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended and the Missouri Minimum Wage Act, and asserts that all transportation providers to ModivCare Solutions in the putative class should be considered ModivCare Solutions' employees rather than independent contractors. On June 6, 2021, the Court conditionally certified as the putative class all current and former In Network Transportation Providers who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099 payments from ModivCare Solutions for providing non-emergency medical transportation services for ModivCare Solutions for the previous three years. Notice of the proposed collective class was issued on October 5, 2021, and potential members of the class had until January 3, 2022 to opt-in. Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification is August 15, 2022, and ModivCare Solutions' opposition to class certification is due September 6, 2022. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company based in Colorado. MODIVCARE INC: Subsidiary Opposes Plaintiffs' Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- ModivCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that All Metro Health Care filed a motion to oppose class certification and was heard in June 2022. In 2017, one of the company's Personal Care segment subsidiaries, All Metro Home Care Services of New York, Inc., received a class action lawsuit in state court claiming that, among other things, it failed to properly pay live-in caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day. The company currently pays live-ins for 13 hours per day as supported through a written opinion letter from the New York State Department of Labor. A similar case involving this issue has been heard by the New York Court of Appeals, which on March 26, 2019, issued a ruling reversing earlier lower courts' decisions that an employer must pay live-ins for 24 hours. The Court of Appeals agreed with the interpretation to pay live-ins 13 hours instead of 24 hours if certain conditions were being met. If the class action lawsuit on this matter is allowed to proceed, and is successful, All Metro may be liable for back wages and litigated damages going back to November 2011. All Metro filed its motion to oppose class certification of this matter and the matter was heard on June 23, 2022. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company based in Colorado. MONTGOMERY ENTERPRISES: Shead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Devon Shead, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MONTGOMERY ENTERPRISES, INC. and T5 GROUP OF TENNESSEE, LLC, d/b/a TAKE 5 OIL CHANGE, Case No. 2:22-cv-02580-SHL-tmp (W.D. Ten., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods during all times material, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. The Defendants are franchisees of Take 5 Oil Change and own and operate Take 5 Oil Change operations throughout Tennessee and Mississippi.[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 & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com MRO CORPORATION: Hollabaugh Suit Removed to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Janice Hollabaugh, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRO Corporation, Case No. C-03-CV-22-003166 was removed from the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, to the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland on Sept. 2, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02213-JRR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. MRO Corp -- https://mrocorp.com/ -- empowers healthcare organizations with proven, enterprise-wide solutions for the secure, compliant and efficient Release of Information (ROI).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles A Gilman, Esq. Lauren Monica Geisser, Esq. GILMAN & BEDIGIAN, LLC 1954 Greenspring Drive, Suite 250 Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: (410) 560-4999 Fax: (410) 308-3116 Email: cgilman@cgilmanlaw.com lgeisser@gblegalteam.com - and - Richard S Gordon, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD 100 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 100 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: (410) 825-2300 Fax: (410) 825-0066 Email: rgordon@GWCfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gordon S Woodward, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL AND LEWIS LLP 1750 K St. NW Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 419-4215 Fax: (202) 419-4253 Email: gwoodward@schnader.com NAVIENT CORP: Faces Various Suits Over Violation of Consumer Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D Report for the distribution period from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that Navient has been named as the defendant in a number of putative class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and various other state consumer protection laws. SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is into backed securities based in Virginia. NAVIENT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court ------------------------------------------------------------ SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D Report for the distribution period from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that three cases, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the court. During the first quarter of 2016, SLM's fund manager, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings (including certain of the initial purchasers) were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is "Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al." SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is into backed securities based in Virginia. NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D Report for the distribution period from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that settlements of a consolidated class action has received final court approval. Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned "Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown," and "Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown", both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption "In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation" and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018. In the third quarter of 2021, Navient reached tentative agreements to settle both cases. The settlements, in which Navient and the other defendants expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing or fault, have received final court approval and are covered by insurance. SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is into backed securities based in Virginia. Its fund is managed by Navient Corp. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Price, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE PRICE, ET AL., v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, COMMISSIONER (CFI), ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: A. Granting his motion to certify the case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and certifying the class defined as: "CFI Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit, have been placed at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization because Defendants, by act or omission, fail to ensure that the CFI participants receive the community-based long term care services and supports through the waiver program for which they have been found eligible and assessed to need;" B. Appointing them as class representatives; C. Appointing their counsel as class counsel; and D. Granting such other and further relief in favor of the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class as the Court determines appropriate. The Plaintiffs are participants in CFI's Medicaid Waiver program who are at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization because the Defendants are failing to administer their programs and services in a manner that ensures that Plaintiffs receive the community-based services that they have been determined eligible for and assessed to need. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and hundreds of other CFI Waiver program participants who face the same risk. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rkb6hM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cheryl S. Steinberg, Esq. Kay E. Drought, Esq. NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 117 N. State Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 206-2210 E-mail: csteinberg@nhla.org kdrought@nhla.org - and - Pamela E. Phelan, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER -- NEW HAMPSHIRE 64 North Main Street, Suite 2 Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 228-0432 E-mail: Pamelap@drcnh.org - and - Mark Tyler Knights, Esq. Kierstan E. Schultz, Esq. W. Daniel Deane, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street, 14th Floor Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 628-4000 E-mail: mknights@nixonpeabody.com kschultz@nixonpeabody.com ddeane@nixonpeabody.com - and - Kelly Bagby, Esq. Stefan Shaibani, Esq. Maame Gyamfi, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org sshaibani@aarp.org mgyamfi@aarp.org NEW MEXICO: Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Fawley Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BENJAMIN W. FAWLEY, Plaintiff v. ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO, et al, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1342 MIS-KRS (D.N.M.), Judge Margaret Strickland of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denies the Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider the order dismissing the civil case without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) as directed. The Plaintiff initiated the case in New Mexico's First Judicial District Court. His original pro se Tort Complaint alleges he was convicted of crimes in Virginia, but the Defendants improperly collected restitution funds for the benefit of New Mexico victims. The Defendants initially removed the case and sought dismissal with prejudice. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed at least 16 responses, notices, letters, and briefs. The supplemental filings cite new statutes, documents, and arguments in support of the Plaintiff's claim about excess restitution, but the requested relief is not entirely clear. By a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered Sept. 21, 2021, the Court (Hon. James O. Browning) discerned the Plaintiff may seek to amend and directed him to file a single, amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. The Plaintiff was advised to avoid filing a "shot gun pleading," which cites every conceivable statute. The Order to Amend warned that the failure to file a single, amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 may result in dismissal of the matter without further notice. The Plaintiff did not comply. He filed an Amended Complaint, an accompanying Brief on the Documents, and at least 12 motions, responses, and replies. The motions, responses, and replies ostensibly address procedural matters but also seek relief under statutes and theories that were not raised in the Amended Complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss all federal claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for failure to comply with minimum pleading standards. Both parties requested monetary sanctions, and the Plaintiff sought a remand to state court. The Plaintiff believes it was fraudulent to remove the case under federal question jurisdiction but then seek dismissal for failure to state a federal claim; the Defendants allege the Plaintiff is engaging in vexatious litigation. By an Order entered June 28, 2022, the Court declined to impose monetary sanctions or filing restrictions but dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Order to Amend and Rule 8. The Dismissal Order was entered without prejudice to refiling the claims in state court, where the Plaintiff prefers to litigate. The Dismissal Order also clarifies it does not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Plaintiff appealed the Dismissal Order and then filed the instant Motions to Reconsider. The Tenth Circuit abated the appeal pending resolution of the Motions to Reconsider. Among other things, Judge Strickland opines that the Plaintiff does not point to new law or evidence impacting Rule 8 or Rule 41. The Court provided instructions on how to file a pleading that would comply with Rule 8. The Dismissal Order explains that striking filings would not cure the issue because the Plaintiff's procedural arguments are inextricably comingled with his legal theories. The Motions to Reconsider underscore this point. Judge Strickland also declines to reconsider the Court's conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 8. She says the Plaintiff received prior warnings and instructions on Rule 8, based on his pro se status, and he had adequate notice and opportunity to comply with that rule. For the same reasons, she denies the Plaintiff's requests to make findings and conclusions on the merits of any claims. The Plaintiff finally argues his allegations were undisputed; his allegations warrant relief; and the group of incarcerated individuals in New Mexico is easily identifiable, suggesting he wishes to assert class action claims. These arguments, according to Judge Strickland, are not relevant to the Dismissal Order, which is predicated on the inability to discern and address the Plaintiff's claims. She also notes that the Defendants sought dismissal and sanctions; they did not consent to any relief. For all of these reasons, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the Dismissal Order under Rule 59(e). She denies the Motions to Reconsider. This ruling has no impact on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims or his ability to refile a single, amended complaint setting forth all grounds for relief. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider are denied. The Clerk will supplement the preliminary record on appeal with a copy of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nwkcmr2 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: Court Junks Keil Class Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keil et al., v. The City of New York., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08773-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The Court said, "The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a claim and therefore have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the public interest weighs in their favor." New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that’s among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling Central Park. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TKj59k at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Discovery in Franklin Suit Extended to Oct. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants the parties' joint motion for extension of time to Oct. 17, 2022, to complete discovery in the lawsuit styled ALICIA FRANKLIN and VANESSA LACHOWSKI, Plaintiffs v. KODY H. KINSLEY, in his official capacity of Secretary of the NC Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-581-FL (E.D.N.C.). The Court memorializes the terms and reasons of its oral order granting in part the motion at hearing, and it provides additional direction to the clerk and the parties in furtherance of the same. At hearing, the parties outlined their efforts to work collaboratively, over the course of more than three years of negotiations, to reach a comprehensive settlement to resolve all issues outstanding. Upon the Court's inquiry into the status of those negotiations, the parties confirmed that an extension of time to Oct. 17, 2022, operating in the manner of a stay of all case activities, would be sufficient time to execute a settlement agreement and prepare all necessary supporting documentation to effectuate court approval of the same. Accordingly, the Court granted in part the motion, allowing an extension of time in the nature of a stay of case activities until Oct. 17, 2022. Filings anticipated to be made by this deadline include the following: 1. A joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members; 2. Settlement agreement; 3. Proposed notice to class members; 4. Proposed order preliminarily approving settlement agreement, requiring notice to class members, and scheduling a fairness hearing; 5. Proposed order of final approval of settlement agreement and proposed order of dismissal with prejudice; and/or 6. Such other proposed orders and documents as necessary to effectuate resolution of the instant matter. Further, the Court noted at hearing that, assuming any such motion and accompanying filings ultimately find favor with it, the Court anticipates a fairness hearing on Jan. 13, 2023, would, as the parties confirmed, provide sufficient time for necessary notice to class members under the terms of the anticipated settlement agreement. Judge Flanagan notes that on the basis of the suggestion of death of Plaintiff Vanessa Lachowski on March 24, 2022, where no motion for substitution has been filed, the action by Lachowski is dismissed, and the clerk is directed to update the docket reflect this dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). In addition, the clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect addition of Plaintiff Reina Guzman, on behalf of herself, minor child E.L., and all others similarly situated. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3wm5xr from Leagle.com. NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Loses Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE BARNEY, et al., v. NOVA LIFESTYLE, INC., et al.,Case No. 2:18-cv-10725-TJH-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order denying the motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the class settlement. On December 28, 2018, the Plaintiff George Barney, a shareholder of Defendant Nova, filed this putative class action against Nova and some of its current and former officers -- Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffrey Chuang, and Yuen Ching Ho -- on behalf of himself and others who purchased Nova shares between December 2, 2015, and December 20, 2018. This case was originally assigned to Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. Nova is a Nevada corporation, with executive offices in California, that designs, manufactures, and sells furniture. Barney alleged that Nova made false and misleading statements that resulted in the artificial inflation of its stock price. Allegedly, after an internet article published on December 21, 2018, revealed the false and misleading statements, Nova's stock fell from $0.77 to $0.46 per share. The Settlement Agreement calls for a gross settlement amount of $750,000.00, subject to deductions for: (1) An unspecified amount of taxes and tax costs; (2) Up to $150,000.00 for administrative settlement costs, including $100,000.00 before the settlement’s effective date, and $50,000.00 after the effective date; (3) Up 6 to $187,500.00 for attorneys' fees and $90,000.00 for litigation expenses; and (4) $10,500.00 for incentive awards -- $3,500.00 each for Deutner, ITENT, and Miles. After the proposed deductions, the net amount payable to the class will be only $312,000.00 -- approximately 42% of the gross settlement amount. Nova designs, manufactures and sells modern home furniture for middle class and urban consumers in diverse markets worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qg6oWs at no extra charge.[CC] NOVANT HEALTH: Curry Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Novant Health, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Curry, Christine Curry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Novant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00697-CCE-JEP (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Novant Health -- https://www.novanthealth.org/ -- is a leading healthcare provider with 15 hospitals & more than 350 physician practices offering advanced medical treatment in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com NOVANT HEALTH: Novack Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Novant Health, Inc. The case is styled as David Novack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Novant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00700-CCE-JEP (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Novant Health -- https://www.novanthealth.org/ -- is a leading healthcare provider with 15 hospitals & more than 350 physician practices offering advanced medical treatment in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com OAK STREET HEALTH: Faces Allison Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------ Oak Street Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on January 10, 2022, Reginald T. Allison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company, its CEO and Timothy Cook, its CFO, and also against certain stockholders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-00149). On March 25, 2022, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Retirement Income Plan 1987 and Boston Retirement System's were appointed as the lead plaintiffs in the case. On May 25, 2022, the Northeast Pension Funds along with an additional named plaintiff, the City of Dearborn Police and Fire Revised Retirement System, filed their consolidated amended and restated complaint. Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its executive officers made false and/or misleading statements about patient acquisition tactics that purportedly violated the False Claims Act and federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and are purportedly the subject of the civil investigative demand. The Amended Complaint includes two categories of claims, namely, claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly misleading public statements throughout the class period of August 6, 2020 through November 8, 2021 and claims under the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses accompanying the Oak Street Health, Inc. initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The Exchange Act claims are asserted against Oak Street Health, Inc., Michael Pykosz, its CEO and Timothy Cook, its CFO, and also against certain stockholders as "control persons." The Securities Act Claims are asserted against the same defendants as well as the underwriters of the Company's public offerings, and the Oak Street Health, Inc. directors who signed the registration statements. The Amended Complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other unspecified equitable relief. On July 25, 2022, the defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Oak Street Health, Inc. operates and controls all of the business affairs of OSH LLC and its affiliates based in Illinois. OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Dismisses Farmer's 1st Amended FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMIE FARMER, Plaintiff v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00907-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The class action is related to an allegedly misleading debt collection letter. The Plaintiff brings various claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Section 1788, et seq., and the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The Defendant collects defaulted consumer debts owed to other creditors. It sent the Plaintiff -- a Wisconsin resident -- a letter collecting her allegedly defaulted Kohl's credit card debt incurred for personal, family, and household purposes. The FAC challenges these statements on two grounds: (1) The sentence "We are willing to settle your account for 50% of the balance due" falsely implies that Defendant has the authority to decide the condition of the debt settlement when only the creditor does (the "Authority Theory"). (2) The Defendant's statement that it is not obligated to renew the offer is false, deceptive, and misleading because it must extend the offer deadline beyond 45 days (the "Renewal Theory"). According to the FAC, the debt's creditor contractually requires the Defendant to settle the debt for 50% of the balance due during the entire time when Defendant collects on an account. In other words, the Defendant must always renew the offer, contrary to the letter's statement that it is "not obligated" to do so. The letter, the Plaintiff alleges, "unfairly influences her and least sophisticated consumer's decision to accept the creditor's offer" and "deprived her of truthful, non-misleading, information." The Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on Feb. 14, 2022. Besides the Renewal Theory, the initial complaint alleged that the itemized "Balance Due" in the letter gave an allegedly false impression that the debt was increasing (the "Balance Due Theory"). The Defendant moved to dismiss, and the Plaintiff amended her complaint in response. In the FAC, the Plaintiff dropped the Balance Due Theory and added the Authority Theory described. The Defendant again moved to dismiss for failing to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). In the briefings, the parties only focused on the Renewal Theory. At the hearing for the motion to dismiss, the Court raised questions about the Plaintiff's Article III standing sua sponte -- in particular, whether the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged injury. The "Plaintiff stated that she has suffered only intangible harm (stress) because of the Defendant's alleged conduct," and she "took no action in reliance upon the alleged false statement and was not in a position to pay off the loan even as offered." The Court ordered the parties to file concurrent supplemental briefing on standing, and they have done so. The parties agree that the Ninth Circuit's two-step framework applies. They also agree that the Court should consider what has been called the "close relationship" inquiry. Accordingly, Judge Chen, in applying the Ninth Circuit's framework, must determine whether there is a historical or common-law analog to the Plaintiff's alleged injury traditionally recognized by American courts. First, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's false statements violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f. All of her FDCPA claims are predicated on the Defendant's statements-at-issue as described. She asserts two types of harm. First, although not alleged in the FAC, her counsel represented at the hearing that she has suffered stress. Second, the FAC alleges that the Defendant's letter "deprived her of truthful, non-misleading, information in connection with its attempt to collect a debt" -- in other words, informational injury. Judge Chen only addresses the Plaintiff's alleged harm of emotional stress. He holds that the Ninth Circuit has not yet considered whether allegations of intangible harm -- emotional distress, loss of personal reputation, and loss of personal time -- without more, suffice as concrete injury-in-fact for standing purposes in a FDCPA case in view of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021). Second, the Plaintiff contends that "an FDCPA violation standing alone creates a sufficient concrete injury." But "'a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm,' cannot 'satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III,'" Judge Chen holds. An injury in law is not an injury in fact. Only those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation may sue that private defendant over that violation in federal court. A statutory violation of the FDCPA does not create a per se injury sufficient to confer standing. More is needed. Third, since a violation of the FDCPA alone does not confer standing, Judge Chen proceeds to analyze the concreteness of the Plaintiff's alleged harm under the Ninth Circuit's framework. He finds that neither historical practice nor Congressional judgment establishes that Congress established the FDCPA to protect the Plaintiff's interests in being free from emotional distress resulted from Defendant's alleged misrepresentation of the sort asserted here where there was no consumer reliance. The alleged violation is therefore "more procedural than substantive." Fourth, Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiff has not alleged actual harm or a material risk of harm to the interests protected by the FDCPA. As discussed, the FDCPA is designed to protect a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her responses. The purported misrepresentation here did not harm that protected interests because the Plaintiff did not and could not have changed her response even if the misrepresentation were corrected. She therefore lacks Article III standing. Judge Chen concludes that the Plaintiff did not suffer a sufficiently concrete injury to have Article III standing for her FDCPA claims. Since she brought state law claims which are not disposed of by the ruling, the Court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice. Judge Chen's Order disposes of Docket No. 19. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter Judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9cb36m from Leagle.com. OS RESTAURANT: Thomas Files FLSA Conditional Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN THOMAS on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC AND OS PRIME, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10793-DPW (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff files motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and the proposed collective action members all wages due as a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with the tip credit requirements under the FLSA. Specifically, the Plaintiff and the proposed collective action members worked as servers and bartenders and were paid an hourly rate below the federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wages for being paid less than the federal minimum. OS Restaurant operates brands like Bonefish Grill, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ez7o5C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP Texas Bar No. 24050022 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Arnold. J. Lizana, III LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C. 1350 Main Street, Suite 302 Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (877) 443-0999 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com OSI SYSTEMS: Judgment Entered in Longo; Case Dismissed W/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters Judgment in the case, CORY LONGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OSI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 17-8841 FMO (SKx) (C.D. Cal.), and dismisses the case with prejudice. Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed contemporaneously with the filing of the present Judgment, Judge Olguin ordered the following: 1. The class counsel will be paid $3,125,000 in attorney's fees, and $134,863.08 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order. 2. The Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, will be paid for its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 3. All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). 4. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein and in the prior orders of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9xwj26 from Leagle.com. OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Marlowe Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIM MARLOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY; and KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03648-SDG (N.D. Ga., Aug. 9, 2022) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") for resident mortgage clients of KeyBank and other lenders that utilized the services of OSC, including, but not limited to, name, mortgage property address, mortgage account number and mortgage account information, phone number, property information, the first eight digits of Social Security number, and home insurance policy number and home insurance information. According to the complaint, on or before August 4, 2022, OSC learned that an unauthorized external party gained remote access to its network and on July 5, 2022, acquired information from a number of OSC clients, including the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members that OSC obtained from KeyBank (the "Data Breach"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. KeyBank admits that the unencrypted PII obtained by an unauthorized external party included name, mortgage property address, mortgage account number(s) and mortgage account information, phone number, property information, the first eight digits of Social Security number, and home insurance policy number and home insurance information, says the suit. OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY provides insurance services. The Company offers services including risk management, collateral protection, tracking, and compliance of liability, property, workers' compensation and alternative risk options insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Bosseler, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Email: gbosseler@forthepeople.com -and- Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -and- Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -and- John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Commissions, Vidiri Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD VIDIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYLOCITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case: 1:22-cv-04920 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2022) is an action for for breach of an agreement related to unpaid commissions based on the commission agreements the Defendant created to pay commissions to these employees. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other Account Executives full and complete commissions for all sales submitted by Fiscal Year end 2021 (which ended June 30, 2021). Instead of paying those sales submitted according to the Fiscal Year 2021 plan (the "2021 Plan"), as the agreement between the Parties required, Defendant instead used the Fiscal Year 2022 plan (the "2022 Plan") to pay Plaintiff and other Account Executives for their Fiscal Year 2021 sales, which resulted in them receiving lower commissions than they were entitled to, says the suit. PAYLOCITY CORPORATION is a Human Resources and Payroll software company which sells its services to businesses throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 380 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: KimD@forthepeople.com -and- C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com -and- Angeli Murthy, Esq., B.C.S. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 Email: Amurthy@forthepeople.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kang Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- PayPal Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a hearing was held on August 5, 2022. On August 20, 2021, a putative securities class action captioned "Kang v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 21-cv-06468, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It asserts claims relating to the company's disclosure of the CFPB PayPal Credit Matter and the SEC Debit Card Program Matter in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021. The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2017 and July 28, 2021 and asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by the Company during the Class Period were rendered materially false and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices) by the defendants' failure to disclose that, among other things, PayPal's business practices with respect to PayPal Credit and regarding interchange rates paid to its bank partner related to its bank-issued co-branded debit cards were non-compliant with applicable laws and/or regulations. The securities action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. On November 2, 2021, the court appointed a Lead Plaintiff, and on January 25, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges a class period between April 27, 2016 and July 28, 2021 and in addition to the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer, also names other Company executives as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that various statements made by the defendants during the Amended Class Period were rendered materially false and misleading, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by PayPal's alleged violations of the 2015 consent order with the CFPB, federal consumer financial laws, and Regulation II. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2022. The motion is fully briefed and the hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 5, 2022. PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a technology platform that enables digital payments based in California. PHILO INC: Nickerson Sues Over Unlawful Disclosing of Identities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Nickerson, and Christy Emerson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PHILO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-05006-AGT (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2022), against Philo for disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and the specific video materials they obtained from the Defendant's website to Facebook, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook"), "personally identifiable information" ("PII") about the videos the Plaintiffs and similarly situated subscribers obtain from Defendant's websites and applications (collectively "websites"). The Plaintiffs' allegations are made on personal knowledge as to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' own acts and upon information and belief as to all other matters. Philo violates the VPPA by disclosing the specific videos its subscribers have requested or obtained to Facebook. Defendant discloses this information to Facebook using the "Facebook Pixel" or "Pixel"--a snippet of programming code Philo chose to install on its websites that sends information to Facebook. In this case, the information shared with Facebook includes the subscriber's Facebook ID ("FID") coupled with the title of the video that the subscriber watched on the Philo website. Philo discloses the subscriber's FID and viewing content to Facebook together in a single transaction. Because the subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook account, Facebook—or any other person—can use the FID to quickly and easily locate, access, and view a particular subscriber's corresponding Facebook profile. In the simplest terms, the Pixel installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Facebook what video a specific subscriber viewed on the Philo website, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used their Internet-connected device and web-browsing software installed on that device to visit and watch video content on the Defendant's website. Philo is a California Corporation with its headquarters in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Courtney E. Ross, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR, 72201 Phone: 501-312-8500 Fax 501-312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415-956-1000 Facsimile: 415-956-1008 Email: msobol@lchb.com - and - Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: 212-355-9500 Facsimile: 212-355-9592 Email: dcuthbertson@lchb.com PICKAWAY PLAINS: Nicklas Sues to Recover Compensation ----------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Nicklas, Davian Rogers, and Jerrod Rogers, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated v. PICKAWAY PLAINS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. d/b/a PRO CARE MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, Case No. 2:22-cv-03304-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 1, 2022), is brought to recover compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members' primary duties were those of an "Other First Responder", specifically, paramedics, emergency medical technicians ("EMTs") and/or ambulance personnel as those jobs are described and thus were non-exempt employees entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime at 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have yet to receive either their ultimate or both their ultimate and penultimate paychecks owed to them by Defendant for work they have already performed for Defendant's benefit. The Defendant made no indication in its email that it was going to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members who were affected by these branch closings, and none of the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have received payment for their work performed from approximately July 10, 2022 to their final day of work for the Defendant. Resultingly, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are still owed for approximately hundreds to thousands of hours worked engaged in under Defendant's employment and for Defendant's benefit, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendant. Pickaway Plains is a domestic for-profit corporation licensed to do business in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com PRECIGEN INC: Faces Abailla Shareholder Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Precigen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit filed a third amended restated complaint after the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In October 2020, several shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints name as defendants the company and certain of its current and former officers. The plaintiffs' claims track the allegations in the SEC's administrative order described above but challenge disclosures about the MBP program through September 2020, i.e., the date of the SEC administrative order. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In April 2021, the court granted an order consolidating the claims and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the case, captioned "Abailla v. Precigen, Inc. (formerly Intrexon Corp.), et al." In May 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. In September 2021, the court issued an order mooting the defendants' motion to dismiss in light of the lead plaintiff's stated intent to file a second amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 31, 2022, the court granted the company's motion, dismissing the second amended complaint with leave to amend. On August 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended and restated complaint. Precigen, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company based in Maryland. PRECISE SECURITY: Misclassifies Security Officers, Malbory Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON MALBORY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISE SECURITY SERVICES LLC, and DAVID REESE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03491-WMR (N.D. Ga., August 29, 2022) files this collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security officer from on approximately June 13, 2022 and ended on approximately August 6, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants incorrectly classified him and other similarly situated security officers as independent contractors. Regardless of the numbers of hours they have worked, the Defendant paid them a flat hour rate. The Plaintiff asserts that they were denied by the Defendants of their lawfully earned 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. Allegedly, the Defendants willfully and wantonly disregarded the Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers' rights. Thus, they are entitled to recover punitive damages, as well as all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper, says the suit. Precise Security Services LLC is a company that provides security services. David Reese is the owner and general manager of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 876-8100 Fax: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Certify Contract Earners Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JORDAN, et. al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PREFERRED FINANCIAL CORPORATION, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-914-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following The PFC/CBL Contract Earners Class: "All persons or entities who (a) at any point during the three year period of time preceding October 21, 2021 through the present, (b) had a contract with PFC related to CBL Policies, (c) earned commissions for the issuance, selling, or servicing of CBL Policies, (d) but have not been paid those commissions on behalf of themselves and the agents acting on their behalf;" Excluded from the Class is: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) PFC, CBL and any entity which PFC or CBL has a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in PFC or CBL and all legal representatives; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel, and appoint them as Class Representatives. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qi5SY3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Mark R. Sigmon, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Jacob M. Morse, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: mlee@milberg.com msigmon@milberg.com jwilliams@milberg.com jmorse@milberg.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD, PLLC 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Fiordirosa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ATTILIO FIORDIROSA, THOMAS GREEN, IVAN KENTER, BECKY PALMER, and RUTH TANENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-6682 (PKC) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants PCH's motion to stay discovery pending a decision on its pending motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against PCH on March 4, 2022. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of five publicity statutes of five states: (1) Illinois, 765 ILCS 1075/30 (a) (IRPA); (2) California, Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344(a) (CRPL); (3) South Dakota, S.D. Codified Laws Section 21-64-2 (SDRPL); (4) Ohio, Rev. Code Section 2741.02(A)-(B) (ORPL); and (5) Puerto Rico, P.R. Laws tit. 32, Section 3152 (2011) (PRRPA). The Plaintiffs allege that PCH violated and continues to violate these statutes, by selling and renting, without consent, mailing lists containing the names, addresses, and other personal information, of Plaintiffs, and all of PCH's customers. On May 2, 2022, PCH filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which the Plaintiffs opposed. On June 13, 2022, PCH filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The motion is unopposed. Judge Wicks first examines whether PCH has made a strong showing that the Plaintiff's claims are unmeritorious. PCH's motion to dismiss is based on two grounds: (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any state right-of-publicity statute; and (2) the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the CRPL. As to the Defendant's first ground for dismissal, PCH argues that in order to state a viable right-of-publicity claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) her identity was publicly associated with a product, and (2) the product with which her identity was publicly associated was different than her identity itself. It asserts that the Plaintiffs do not allege that their name, image, or likeness was publicly available or that PCH used their name, image, or likeness in connection with, or for the advertising or sale of, any other product. Rather, the Plaintiffs' information was the product. Indeed, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint acknowledges that purchasers of PCH's mailing list were unaware of their identities prior to the sale. Further, they have not alleged that their identities were used in any of PCH's products other than the mailing list, which is not a separable product from the Plaintiffs' identities. Thus, PCH has made a strong showing that the Plaintiffs' case is unmeritorious. As to the Defendant's second ground for dismissal, it rgues that Green has failed to plead a resulting injury, precluding a claim under the CRPL. The Plaintiffs assert that Green has alleged sufficient facts to establish injury insofar as he has alleged that he never consented to PCH using his name or likeness, significant commercial value exists in his name and likeness, and PCH reaped significant profits through the sale of its mailing lists. Judge Wicks finds that Green has conclusory alleged that "significant commercial value exists" in the names and likenesses that PCH used and continues to use and that he and the members of the California Class "have been injured." Therefore, PCH has made a strong showing that Green's claim under CRPL is unmeritorious. Second, Judge Wicks examines the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it. He says it would be extremely burdensome for PCH because the Amended Complaint involves five different publicity statutes, from five plaintiffs who each reside in a different state or territory. PCH claims, and the Plaintiffs do not disagree, that preparing and responding to written discovery and accompanying document production would be extremely time consuming and costly. In the event a stay is not issued, PCH would be burdened with expending time and resources to effectuate discovery concerning all five Plaintiffs when there is a possibility that some, if not all the Plaintiffs' claims, will be dismissed. Indeed, a ruling on the motion to dismiss could greatly limit the facts at issue or dismiss the Amended Complaint entirely. This weighs in favor of issuing a stay of discovery. Finally, Judge Wicks examines the risk of unfair prejudice. He says there is little, if any, risk of unfair prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Indeed, they do not claim or identify any prejudice but rather join in on PCH's sentiments about the burden of proceeding with discovery. A stay would likewise eliminate the Plaintiffs' potential waste of resources and time. Nonetheless, any prejudice to the Plaintiffs would be short-lived in that once the Court rules on PCH's motion to dismiss, discovery will either move forward, or will no longer be necessary as the ruling on the motion may reduce, if not eliminate, the Plaintiffs' claims. Based on the foregoing, Judge Wicks concludes that PCH has made a sufficient showing that it may be successful on its motion to dismiss, that a stay would eliminate the potential waste of resources and time, and a stay of discovery would not pose a risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, and considering the Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, good cause exists, warranting a stay of discovery. Therefore, PCH's motion to stay is granted and discovery in the action is stayed pending a resolution on PCH's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ny7hnx66 from Leagle.com. Thomas L. Laughlin -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP, in New York City, for Plaintiff Attilio Fiordirosa. Cassie D. Collignon -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- Paul Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Robyn Mara Feldstein -- rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, in Denver, Colorado, for Defendant Publishers Clearing House, Inc. PW COMPANIES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PW Companies, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PW Companies, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07531 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PW Companies, LLC is in the Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Allowed to Seal Class Cert-Related Docs ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA STEWART and ZULEKHA ABDUL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of in the State of California, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion to seal documents in support of Plaintiff's class certification motion and Plaintiffs' opposition to Quest motion to strike Plaintiffs' PAGA claims. Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500 company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Brazil. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3enHCRr at no extra charge.[CC] QUOGUE GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quogue Gallery LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Quogue Gallery LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Quogue Gallery -- https://quoguegallery.com/ -- is a dynamic space in the Hamptons where artists, collectors, and art enthusiasts can meet and share their common passion for serious artistic investigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal R & R GAMES INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & R Games, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. R & R Games, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07562-CM (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. R&R Games, Inc. -- https://rnrgames.com/ -- makes original, high-quality card games, strategy games & party games for the whole family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com RAYTHEON COMPANY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.R., by and through his parents and guardians, S.R. and T.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the Raytheon Health Benefits Plan, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY; RAYTHEON HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN; and WILLIAM M. BULL, Case No. 1:20-cv-10153-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff N.R. moves the Court for the certification of the following settlement class: "All individuals who: (1) were participants or beneficiaries under the Raytheon Health Benefits Plan at any time during the Settlement Class Period; (2) who have incurred any out-of-pocket expense for "Speech, Habilitative and/or Non-Restorative Therapy Services" to treat a "Qualified Mental Health Condition" (excluding expenses related to co-payments and deductibles); (3) while they were eligible for benefits under the Plan; (4) that was not covered by other health insurance and has not been paid or reimbursed by another payor, insurer, entity, plan, or person other than the individual (or a family member of that individual). The terms "Speech, Habilitative and/or Non-Restorative Therapy Services" and "Qualified Mental Health Condition" are defined in and have the same meaning as those terms appear in the Settlement Agreement. This case was filed on January 24, 2020 on behalf of N.R. and other similarly situated individuals. N.R. is a child diagnosed with ASD who need speech therapy that was denied by the Plan under the Exclusion. This was Defendants' standard practice. The blanket exclusion remained in the Plan until December 31, 2021. As a result, Plaintiff N.R. and his parents, and other similarly situated individuals had to pay for medically necessary speech therapy services out of their own pockets. N.R. and his parents alleged that the Defendants' exclusion of speech therapy to treat certain mental health conditions violated the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. This lawsuit sought both prospective and retrospective relief on behalf of a proposed class enrollees who were subjected to Defendants' exclusion. Raytheon Company was a major U.S. defense contractor and industrial corporation with manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and commercial electronics. It was previously involved in corporate and special-mission aircraft until early 2007. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qnuv5J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 448-2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Fultz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables Management Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Shaquerra A. Fultz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Receivables Management Partners, LLC doing business as: RMP, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04707 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Receivables Management Partners doing business as RMP -- https://www.receivemorermp.com/ -- is an award-winning healthcare financial services firm providing A/R management assistance for medical providers to focus on patients instead of payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Marwan R. Daher, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com RESURRECTION UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey BIPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled BRITTNEY HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURRECTION UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-3203 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Brittney Harvey brings this putative class action against Defendant Resurrection University alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Resurrection University moves to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). Ms. Harvey is a student at Resurrection University, a private university with its main campus in Chicago, Illinois. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Resurrection, like many colleges around the country, offered coursework that required students to take quizzes and exams online. These exams are conducted using an online remote proctoring tool called Respondus Monitor. Since March 2020, Harvey enrolled in numerous courses at Resurrection that require the use of Respondus. While agreeing to use Respondus for her exams, Harvey did not know it would collect and analyze her biometric identifiers before and during the exams. Through Respondus, and without students' consent, Resurrection collects, captures and stores student information including students' facial features and voice when students take exams online in a non-proctored environment. Before Jan. 21, 2021, the Respondus "Monitor Terms of Use for Students," which students had to accept to take an exam, did not disclose that Respondus Monitor would use facial recognition technology to collect and disseminate students' biometric information. The terms also do not disclose that Respondus shares biometric identifiers and information with Amazon Web Services. Ms. Harvey brings four claims alleging BIPA violations: first, that Resurrection does not have a written publicly-available policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers (Count I). Count II alleges that Resurrection collects, captures, and obtains biometric identifiers or information without informing students in writing that information is being collected or stored. Ms. Harvey also alleges that Resurrection profits from requiring students to use Respondus (Count III). Count IV alleges that Resurrection, through Respondus, discloses or disseminates students' biometric identifiers or biometric information to Amazon Web Services and university instructors and other agents without students' consent. Resurrection removed this case from state court in June 2021, and now moves to dismiss arguing that it is exempt under BIPA's financial-institution exemption. Judge Rowland notes that although neither party has raised standing, when a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts must consider the issue sua sponte, citing Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). Standing must be demonstrated for each claim. Harvey brings claims under Sections 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), and 15(d) of the BIPA. The Court has reviewed the allegations and finds that Harvey's standing is secure for two of her claims, but that she lacks standing to pursue her Sections 15(a) and 15(c) claims (Counts I and III). For her Section 15(b) claim, Judge Rowland finds Harvey's allegations satisfy the injury requirement, and that her allegations meet the standard. Ms. Harvey's allegations are not sufficient to confer standing for her Section 15(a) claim, Judge Rowland holds. She alleges that Resurrection does not comply with the requirements to have a retention schedule or destruction guideline and the school is "in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information" belonging to students. As in Patterson v. Respondus, Inc., No. 20 C 7692, 2022 WL 860946, at *25 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2022), Harvey "merely parrots the statutory language without making any specific factual allegations about retention," Judge Rowland points out. Ms. Harvey also alleges that Resurrection negligently and recklessly profits from gathering students' data and this unlawful conduct caused injury to her and the proposed class. She alleges that Resurrection offers online coursework and receives tuition dollars from students and saves money by not needing to pay proctors to monitor students during exams. Without allegations about how Harvey was personally affected by Resurrections' alleged profiting, she has failed to establish standing for a section 15(c) claim in federal court, Judge Rowland finds. Accordingly, Judge Rowland holds, Harvey has Article III standing for her claims under Sections 15(b) and (d) but lacks Article III standing for her section 15(a) and 15(c) claims. These claims are severed and remanded to state court. Motion to Dismiss Resurrection seeks dismissal on the grounds that it is exempt from BIPA because it is a financial institution subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA). Harvey responds that the plain meaning of "financial institution" does not include universities, that Resurrection is not a financial institution subject to the GLBA, and that BIPA's legislative intent supports her position. Finally, she contends that accepting Resurrection's position would render BIPA invalid. Resurrection argues that because it is subject to Title V of the GLBA as a "financial institution," it is exempt from BIPA under Section 25(c). Under the GLBA, Resurrection argues, colleges and universities are financial institutions because they are an institution engaging in financial activities as described in section 1843(k) of Title 12. Section 1843(k) describes financial activities as lending, exchanging, transferring, investing for others, or safeguarding money or securities, 12 U.S.C. Section 1843(k)(4)(A). Section 25(c) exempts those institutions. Ms. Harvey responds that Resurrection is not subject to the GLBA because Resurrection is not a financial institution under the plain meaning of BIPA and there is no proof of Resurrection "engaging in financial activities." Judge Rowland states that BIPA does not define the term "financial institution." However, courts defer to an agency's construction of a statute to give meaning as long as the construction is reasonable. The Court agrees with the reasoning in Fee v. Illinois Inst. of Tech. and similarly concludes that BIPA's Section 25(c) applies to institutions of higher education that are significantly engaged in financial activities. Judge Rowland opines that Resurrection has alleged enough at this pleading stage. Its motion contains publicly available information from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) about its status as a financial institution and compliance with the GLBA. Resurrection argues that it is a financial institution subject to Title V of the GLBA because it participates in the DOE Federal Student Aid program and is required to comply with the GLBA and its implementing rules, the DOE and FTC have issued statements showing that they consider higher education institutions to be financial institutions under the GLBA, and due to the "significant role colleges and universities play with respect to student financial aid." Resurrection cites to: the school's website describing its significant financial aid program, its listing on DOE's website as a participant in the Federal Student Aid Program, the DOE's Federal Student Aid Handbook stating that participating institutions in the Federal Student Aid Program must comply with the GLBA (and evidence that Resurrection has in fact entered into this Program Participation Agreement with the DOE). The Court takes judicial notice of the publicly available information. But as in Fee, whether Resurrection actually qualifies for the exemption is a factual question best left for a later stage in the case, Judge Rowland says. In response, Harvey makes several arguments that have been rejected by other courts. Harvey suggests that this Court consider legislative history, arguing that "financial institution" was meant to only apply to banks under BIPA. However, like other courts addressing this issue, the Court finds that the plain language is clear, so it need not consult the legislative history. Ms. Harvey also argues that collecting student biometric information during test taking is not a financial transaction. However, Judge Rowland opines, Section 25(c)'s plain language is clear: "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply in any manner to a financial institution." Finally, Harvey contends that excluding much of the private sector (particularly larger entities) from BIPA based on Resurrection's interpretation is irrational, improper, and would eliminate BIPA protection for customers and employees of such entities. This argument is not convincing, Judge Rowland holds. In sum, the Court finds that Section 25(c) of BIPA applies to institutions of higher education that are significantly engaged in financial activities, but declines to find at this stage that Resurrection does in fact qualify for this exemption. For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied. The Section 15(a) and 15(c) claims (Counts I and III) are severed and remanded to state court. Counts II and IV may proceed in this Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3e27yvfa from Leagle.com. RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that on June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amounts of damages. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend the time for the company to respond to Reuben's complaint. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021. Reuben filed her opposition on November 8, 2021, and the company filed its reply on November 22, 2021. A hearing was held on January 6, 2022. The Court overruled the company's demurrer and the parties are now engaged in discovery. RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of cloud communications, video meetings, collaboration, and contact center software-as-a-service solutions based in California. RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Dozier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bennie Dozier, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22601523 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 1, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company -- https://www.ritzcarlton.com/ -- is an American multinational company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter M. Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER M HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 525 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176 Phone: 310-478-5789 Fax: 509-561-6411 Email: hartpeter@msn.com - and - Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP 29800 Agoura Rd., Ste. 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-2578 Phone: 818-991-8080 Fax: 818-991-8081 Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a consolidated class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Beginning in December 2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against RHM, RHF, and RHS. Five cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in May 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and various state law causes of action based on claims that we violated the duty of best execution and misled putative class members by publishing misleading statements and omissions in customer communications relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources (including PFOF). Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, and other relief. In February 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, alleging only violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, which Robinhood moved to dismiss. Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based in California. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Golubowski Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that in December 2021, Philip Golubowski filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against RHM, the officers and directors who signed Robinhood's IPO offering documents, and Robinhood's IPO underwriters. Plaintiff's claims are based on alleged false or misleading statements in Robinhood's IPO offering documents allegedly in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, rescission of shareholders' share purchases, and an award for attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2022, certain alleged Robinhood stockholders submitted applications seeking appointment by the court to be the lead plaintiff to represent the putative class in this matter, and in March 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs. In June 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based in California. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settlement of Securities Suit for Court Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit is subject to court approval. A consolidated putative class action lawsuit relating to service outages on the company's stock trading platform on March 2-3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit generally alleges that putative class members were unable to execute trades during the March 2020 Outages because our platform was inadequately designed to handle customer demand and we failed to implement appropriate backup systems. The lawsuit includes, among other things, claims for breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of certain California consumer protection statutes. The lawsuit generally seeks damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. In May 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving this action. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based in California. ROCKET MORTGAGE: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in D. New Hampshire -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Mortgage, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Daschbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00346 (D.N.M., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Rocket Mortgage -- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/ -- is a mortgage loan provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF V RICHARDS WARD JR PLLC 98 Center Street, PO Box 1117 Wolfeboro, NH 03894 Phone: (603) 569-9222 Fax: (603) 569-9022 Email: rick@vrwardlaw.com SABER HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Healthcare Workers' All Hours Worked ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBI SISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER GOVERNANCE, LLC; CURRITUCK HEALTH & REHAB CENTER, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-00036 (E.D.N.C., Sept. 12, 2022) arises from the Defendants' knowing and willful failure to pay their hourly employees -- frontline healthcare workers -- for all hours worked, including overtime, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina state wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff is a Certified Nursing Assistant who worked for Defendants from December 2020 to April 2021. The Plaintiff is a citizen of North Carolina and resides in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The Plaintiff brings Count I of this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, consisting of: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees employed by Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, Saber Governance, LLC, and/or Currituck Health & Rehab Center, LLC, in the United States who worked more than forty hours in any workweek during the applicable limitations period and who were not paid overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 (the FLSA Collective). The Plaintiff brings Count II of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of herself and the following class: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees employed by Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, Saber Governance, LLC, and/or Currituck Health & Rehab Center, LLC, in North Carolina who worked more than forty hours in any workweek during the applicable limitations period and who were not paid overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (the North Carolina Class). Saber Healthcare is a for-profit corporation that provides skilled nursing, long-term and senior rehabilitation care at its facilities throughout the United States. As a centralized enterprise, Saber Healthcare operates more than 115 facilities across 7 states -- Delaware, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Saber Governance is a Saber Healthcare subsidiary that manages at least 16 skilled nursing, long-term and/or senior rehabilitation centers in North Carolina. Currituck is a Saber Governance subsidiary that operates a skilled nursing, long-term and senior rehabilitation center in Eastern North Carolina. The Defendants employ non-exempt healthcare workers to provide care to seniors across their locations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these frontline workers have risked their lives to continue providing excellent senior citizen care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Reginald L. Streater, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: josterwise@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net apiazza@bm.net rstreater@bm.net SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Steven Wenzel, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 156762525 (Fla. 13th Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 4, 2022), is brought on behalf of persons whose personal and non-public information, including name, contact and demographic information, date of birth, and product registration information were compromised in a massive security breach of the Defendant's computer servers that was allegedly discovered on August 4, 2022 (the "Data Breach"), but not disclosed by the Defendant until September 2, 2022. The Defendant's failure to implement or maintain adequate data security measures for personal information directly and proximately caused injuries to the Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to employ adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("Personal Information" or "PII") despite well-publicized data breaches at large national retail and restaurant chains in recent years, including Arby's, Wendy's, Target, Chipotle, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, Harbor Freight Tools, P.F. Chang's, Dairy Queen, and Kmart. Despite these numerous and high-profile data breaches including the recent high profile hack of credit bureau Equifax that exposed the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans, and the ever evolving hack of Facebook's user data and information, Defendant failed to implement basic security measures such as a firewall, encryption, and other standard data management practices to prevent unauthorized access to this information. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant's negligence, a massive amount of customer information was stolen from Defendant. The Defendant's Data Breach compromised the Personal Information of thousands (if not more) of the Defendant's customers and former employees. Victims of the Data Breach have had their Personal Information compromised, had their privacy rights violated, been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identify theft, lost control over their personal and financial information, and otherwise been injured, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant as a result of Samsung TV he purchased within the class period. Samsung Electronics is a South Korean-based company that operates the largest smartphone and television manufacturer in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com SARABETH'S HOLDING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarabeth's Holding, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sarabeth's Holding, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05261 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sarabeth -- https://www.sarabeth.com/ -- is a multi–award winning restaurateur, artisanal baker and jam maker, cookbook author and winner of the prestigious James Beard Foundation's "Outstanding Pastry Chef of the Year" award.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SATORI LASER CENTER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satori Laser Center Corp. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Satori Laser Center Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-05263 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Satori Laser -- https://www.satorilaser.com/ -- is the largest chain laser center in NYC, Long Island, and Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SCHUTZ CONTAINER: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eli Balderas, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,, v. Schutz Container Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-02427-JZ (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their joint stipulation and conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and certifying a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Parties also request that the Court: 1. Approve the form and substance of the Notice and Consent Forms; 2. Approve Representative Plaintiff Eli Balderas as the Representative Plaintiff of this collective and class action; 3. Approve Matthew J.P. Coffman and Kelsie N. Hendren of Coffman Legal, LLC, and Daniel I. Bryant and Matthew B. Bryant, of Bryant Legal, LLC as Class Counsel; 4. Approve the distribution of the Notice and Consent to Putative Class Members by U.S. mail to last known addresses and also by text message to Putative Class Members' last known mobile phone numbers; 5. Direct that the Defendant shall, within 28 days of the Court's anticipated Order granting conditional certification, provide to Plaintiff's Counsel a list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) of the Putative Collective Members meeting the agreed definition above containing their names, last known addresses (including zip code), and last known cell phone numbers. 6. Direct that the Court-approved Notice and Consent forms shall be dated as of the date the Court grants conditional certification and shall be mailed and sent via text message to the last known mobile phone numbers by a third- party administrator selected by Plaintiff's counsel. 7. Direct that if any Notice and Consent form is returned as undeliverable, the third-party administrator shall attempt to obtain an additional mailing address for the person. 8. Direct that there shall be a 45-day Notice period for Putative Class Members to opt into or opt out of this lawsuit, which shall commence on the date that the Notice and Consent forms are postmarked. 9. Direct that neither party shall contact any of the Putative Class Members for the purpose of discussing the subject matter of or their participation in this lawsuit through the end of the Notice period, except that counsel for either Party may respond to inquiries from the potential Class Members during this time. This shall not be construed as a prohibition on Defendant's interaction with any of the potential opt-in plaintiffs in the normal course of business. The collective and class definition is: "All current and former non-exempt hourly production employees employed by Defendant at its Perrysburg, Ohio facility during the period of December 29, 2019 and continuing through the present who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek in which they also: (1) clocked in or out using Defendant's timekeeping system; (2) had an unpaid break of 20 minutes or less; (3) received an attendance bonus; or (4) had a uniform cleaning fee deducted from their pay Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, an action “may be maintained against any employer by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated." The Parties stipulate that the proposed class meets Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Schutz Container manufactures carbon fiber, drums, and containers. The Company produces bulk containers for transport and storage of fluids. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eCOuKN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com The Defendant is represented by Roman Arce, Esq. MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC 4 Seagate, 8th Floor Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 249-7111 Facsimile: (419) 249-7151 E-mail: arce@marshall-melhorn.com - and - Carl E. Habekost, Esq. Jade L. Robinson, Esq. BUGBEE & CONKLE, LLP 405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Telephone: (419) 244-6788 Telefax: (419) 244-7145 E-mail: chabekost@bugbeelawyers.com jrobinson@bugbeelawyers.com SCIBMATT LLC: Booker Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BOOKER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SCIBMATT LLC d/b/a COPELANDS OF NEW ORLEANS; and BILL GOUDEY, Case No. 1:22-cv-03192-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid wages as a collective action representing a class composed of: "all servers who worked for Defendants at the Copelands of New Orleans Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia at any time from August 11, 2019, to the present pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);" 2. Requiring the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days of the Court's Order a list, in electronic, importable, and searchable format, of all persons who worked as a server at the Copelands of New Orleans Restaurant located Atlanta, Georgia at any time from August 11, 2019, to the present, including their names, job titles, mailing address, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of employment, and dates of birth; 3. Authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants as servers at the Copelands of New Orleans Restaurant at any time from August 11, 2019 to the present via United States mail; electronic mail or message; a case-specific webpage; and social media platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter); and that all forms of distribution include a linked electronic Consent Form that may be completed and signed electronically; 4. Authorizing the conspicuous posting of the proposed notice in laminate form with all pages visible at the Copelands of New Orleans Restaurant where notices of employee rights are customarily posted, along with Consent Forms for employees to complete and return to Plaintiffs' counsel should any employees wish to join this action; and 5. Permitting putative class members 60 days from the date notice is sent to submit (or postmark) a consent form to participate in this action. Scibmatt was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qjB358 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dustin L. Crawford, Esq. M. Travis Foust, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT P.C. 75 14th Street, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 E-mail: dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com SEA BAGS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea Bags, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sea Bags, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07532 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sea Bags -- https://seabags.com/ -- designs and manufactures tote bags, accessories, and home decor from recycled sails on the working waterfront in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SESEN BIO: Three Securities Cases Under Mediation ------------------------------------------------- Sesen 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 August 8, 2022, that parties in three class action lawsuits engaged in mediation on June 30, 2022. On August 19, 2021, August 31, 2021, and October 7, 2021, three substantially identical securities class action lawsuits captioned "Bibb v. Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-07025, "Cizek v. Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-07309, and "Markman v. Sesen Bio, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-08308 were filed against the company and certain of its officers in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The three complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on statements made by the company concerning its BLA for Vicineum for the treatment of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. The three complaints sought compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On October 29, 2021, the court consolidated the three cases under the caption In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH and appointed Ryan Bibb, Rodney Samaan, Lionel Dreshaj and Benjamin Dreshaj collectively as the lead plaintiffs under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On November 1, 2021, two stockholders filed motions to reconsider asking the court to appoint a different lead plaintiff. The court has not ruled on those motions at this time. On November 24, 2021, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That motion was fully briefed as of December 13, 2021, but the court has not yet ruled on that motion. On December 6, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges the same violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the same theory as the prior complaints. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on March 7, 2022. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion on April 6, 2022 and Defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on May 6, 2022. After the motion was fully briefed and before the court ruled on the motion, on June 3, 2022, the parties requested that the court hold any decision on the motion to dismiss in abeyance to provide the parties with an opportunity to engage in mediation. The parties engaged in mediation on June 30, 2022. Sesen Bio, Inc. is a late-stage clinical company based in Massachusetts. SONY GROUP: Discloses Digital Subscribers' Info, Cuevas Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONY GROUP CORPORATION, d/b/a CRUNCHYROLL, Case No. 1:22-cv-04858 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022) is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against Sony Group for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing the Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class Members': -- personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and -- the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed. The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to Crunchyroll in 2018 and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. The Plaintiff has had a Facebook account from approximately 2009 to the present. During the relevant time period she has used her Crunchyroll digital subscription to view Video Media through Crunchyroll and/or App while logged into her Facebook account. By doing so, the Plaintiff's Personal Viewing Information was disclosed to Facebook pursuant to the systematic process described herein. The Plaintiff never gave the Defendant express written consent to disclose her Personal Viewing Information, the suit says. Sony Group manufactures and distributes electronics products and provides related solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 444-0734 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com - and - Patrick Muench, Esq. Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams St., Ste. 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 500-8680 E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com mmurphy@baileyglasser.com SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Belfor Loses Bid to Toss Claims in Flores Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Cain, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, denies the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike filed by Defendant Belfor USA Group Inc. seeking dismissal of all claims raised against it in the lawsuit styled DAVID FLORES, JR., ET AL. v. SOUTHERN RESPONSE SERVICES INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:21-CV-04021 (W.D. La.). The putative collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Louisiana Wage Payment Act ("LWPA") arises from work done by Plaintiffs David Flores, Jr. and Matthew Sirmon for Southern Response Services, Inc. ("SRS"), a subcontractor of Belfor. The Plaintiffs allege as follows: They are hourly non-exempt employees, who were hired by the Defendants as general laborers after Hurricane Laura in 2020. The Defendants employed at least as many as 100-150 workers for their disaster restoration work in Calcasieu Parish and the surrounding areas, and possibly over 2,000 workers throughout the state. Mr. Flores contracted to work for $12/hour, with time and a half over 40 hours per week, plus $15/day per diem, food and lodging, and three hours' compensation for time spent traveling to and from the work site, with a predicted work schedule of 11 hours per day, seven days per week. Sirmon was hired on a promise of wages of $1,000/week, $100/day per diem, travel time from Alabama, travel time for daily commute, and housing expenses. After their arrival on Aug. 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs were housed at a motel in Beaumont, Texas, and promised reimbursement for their travel expenses, which they never received. SRS and Belfor exerted "extensive and continuous control" over the manner in which the Plaintiffs and other hourly non-exempt employees conducted their work, including their arrival times, daily schedules and assignments, sign-in/out procedures, discipline procedures, employee meal and rest breaks, commutes, requiring employees to return to the work site after they had clocked out for meetings, and conditions for termination. The Plaintiffs further allege that they and other similarly situated employees were required to take company vans from the motel to their work sites and were not paid for the wait time or commute. They were not given lunch and dinner did not come until 11:00 p.m. at the motel, where the Defendants only provided enough food for about one quarter of the workers employed. Payroll was provided through a RapidCard and employees were assessed a fee of $3.00 each time they withdrew money from their accounts. The Defendants did not maintain a time clock, did not compensate employees for their commutes as promised, and regularly shaved time off from shift schedules. The Plaintiffs filed suit in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, against Belfor and SRS, raising the following claims against both Defendants: (1) failure to pay minimum wages as required by the FLSA; (2) failure to compensate for all hours worked as required by the LWPA; (3) failure to pay overtime for all hours worked as required by the FLSA; (4) failure to pay overtime for all hours worked as required by the LWPA; (5) failure to reimburse preemployment expenses as required by the FLSA; (6) failure to keep records as required by the FLSA; (7) unfair trade practices under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("LUTPA"); and (8) unjust enrichment. In an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs add a claim under Louisiana worker's compensation law based on the Defendants' alleged retaliatory discharge of Flores after he was injured on the job. They also raise claims of breach of employment contract and detrimental reliance against SRS alone. Finally, they seek to represent a class consisting of a following on their claims: All former employees of the Defendants between August 2020 and December 2020, who came to Lake Charles to provide labor arising from Hurricane Laura, who suffered economic damages as a result of the acts and/or omissions of the named Defendants' mismanagement and for failure to pay wages, seeking recovery of unpaid overtime wages, engaged in unlawful business practices from David Flores, Jr., Matthew Sirmon and its members. Belfor removed the complaint to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. It now moves to dismiss all claims raised against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike the class allegations based on the following assertions: that (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to show that Belfor was their employer; (2) the claims are not suitable for class treatment under Rule 23; and (3) the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Belfor under the LWPA. The Plaintiffs oppose the motions. Employer Status Belfor first asserts that the LWPA and FLSA claims against it fail because the Plaintiffs have not alleged enough facts to show an employee-employer relationship. Both the LWPA and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA obligate employers to pay certain wages owed to their employees. Accordingly, a plaintiff must allege that he was employed by the defendant during the relevant time period in order to state a claim under either statute. Louisiana courts use a five-factor test to evaluate whether an employer/employee relationship exists under the LWPA, with a focus on the employer's right to exercise control over the employee's performance. Meanwhile, the FLSA defines an employer as "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee." The court evaluates employer status with an economic reality test, balancing four factors. To this end it evaluates which entity: (1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records. The Plaintiffs have raised numerous examples of the manner in which both Belfor and SRS allegedly controlled their performance and exercised authority over the essential terms of their employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' allegations at the pleading stage are sufficient to support Belfor's potential liability as employer, Judge Cain holds. Class Allegations Belfor next argues that the claims raised against it should be dismissed because they are not suitable for class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. At the outset, the Court notes that only the Plaintiffs' state law claims are subject to certification under Rule 23 while class treatment of the FLSA claims must be pursued as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Accordingly, Judge Cain says these arguments do not apply to the four claims raised under the FLSA. Belfor argues that, from the face of the complaint, the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(2) or (3). The Plaintiffs respond that they are not basing their claims on Rule 23(b)(2) and the Court agrees that the arguments under those requirements are, therefore, moot. As for Rule 23(b)(3), Belfor argues that individualized determinations as to class members' employment status, entitlement to damages, and calculation of same will predominate and preclude certification. On employment status, Belfor cursorily asserts that the legal standard will differ between the claims based on federal versus state law, and the factual inquiry for each Plaintiff will depend entirely on the specific circumstances surrounding the jobsite, the subcontractor, and the set of work protocols on differing dates. At the outset, the Court notes that the class appears to be defined as those workers employed by both Belfor and its subcontractor SRS; accordingly, the potential for individualized issues relating to different subcontractors is eliminated. As for entitlement to damages and calculation of damages, the Plaintiffs have alleged differing terms of employment and it is possible that terms of employment also differed among the prospective class members. But the Plaintiffs have also alleged, in common and with respect to the class, that the Defendants shorted them across the board by failing to pay commute times, shaving off hours, failing to provide the meals they had promised, and further docking their pay through the Rapid Card system. Judge Cain states that it is too early for the Court to determine the relationship between individualized and generalized claims in this matter. Furthermore, as the Fifth Circuit recently emphasized, a need to calculate damages on an individual basis will not necessarily preclude class certification, he opines, citing Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 954 F.3d 700, 710-11 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the Court will not resort to the drastic remedy of striking class allegations and will instead leave this determination for the class certification stage. LWPA claims Finally, Belfor asserts that the LWPA claims against it must be dismissed as a matter of law. To state a claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant was his employer, (2) the employment relationship ended, (3) the plaintiff was owed wages when the employment ended, and (4) the defendant failed to submit the amount owed within the statutorily mandated 15 days (Dillon v. Toys R Us Delaware Corp., 2017 WL 2351490, at *2 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. May 31, 2017)). To recover for penalty wages and attorney fees under the LWPA, a plaintiff must additionally show that demand for payment was made where the employee was customarily paid and the employer did not pay upon demand. In addition to the employer status allegations, Belfor asserts that the LWPA claims fail because the Plaintiffs have not alleged that they made demand for payment after their separation. However, Judge Cain notes, demand is only required to state a claim for penalty wages and attorney fees and not to assert a claim for unpaid wages itself. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs state that they satisfied this requirement through a demand letter sent to both SRS and Belfor on Jan. 15, 2021. While Belfor contests the adequacy of this letter, the Court agrees that there are no grounds for considering it within the scope of Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, any ruling on the Plaintiffs' ability to meet their burden on the penalty wages and attorney fees claim under the LWPA must await summary judgment. For the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike will be denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Ruling dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mry3dx7h from Leagle.com. SUNRUN INC: Settles Crumline Stockholder Suit in Utah Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the class action settlement was granted by the court and entered a Final Order and Judgment in May 2022. In October 2019, two stockholders filed separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned Crumrine v. Vivint Solar, Inc., purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuits purported to allege violations of Federal Securities Laws. In March 2020, the court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged putative class. Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern District of New York transferred the actions to the District of Utah, where they were pending. Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. Vivint Solar mediated the action with plaintiffs on May 19, 2021, and reached an agreement to resolve the action on a class-wide basis for $1.25 million. A portion of the $1.25 million was covered by insurance proceeds, and the company accrued approximately $750,000 as of June 30, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, the accrual was adjusted to $550,000, because of the portion of the $1.25 million settlement that would be covered by insurance proceeds. On November 30, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The company deposited its portion of the settlement proceeds into an escrow account managed by the class action claims administrator on January 27, 2022. On May 9, 2022, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a Final Order and Judgment, thereby ending the matter. Sunrun Inc. provides solar energy and storage based in California. SUNRUN INC: Settles Li Stockholder Suit ---------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the class action settlement was granted by the court and entered a Final Order and Judgment in May 2022. In October 2019, two stockholders filed separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned Li v. Vivint Solar, Inc. purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuits purported to allege violations of Federal Securities Laws. In March 2020, the court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged putative class. Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern District of New York transferred the actions to the District of Utah, where they were pending. Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. While Vivint Solar believes that the claims against it were without merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the action, Vivint Solar mediated the action with plaintiffs on May 19, 2021, and reached an agreement to resolve the action on a class-wide basis for $1.25 million. A portion of the $1.25 million was covered by insurance proceeds, and the company accrued approximately $750,000 as of June 30, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, the accrual was adjusted to $550,000, because of the portion of the $1.25 million settlement that would be covered by insurance proceeds. On November 30, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The company deposited its portion of the settlement proceeds into an escrow account managed by the class action claims administrator on January 27, 2022. On May 9, 2022, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a Final Order and Judgment, thereby ending the matter. Sunrun Inc. provides solar energy and storage based in California. SUSHINATI LLC: Seeks More Time to File FLSA Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN GILSTRAP, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. SUSHINATI LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file their response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action by 30 days, up to and including September 30, 2022. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xcLV8N at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by Neal Shah, Esq. Jessica T.S. Sexton, Esq. Anne E. Duprey, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 3300 Great American Tower 301 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-6800 Facsimile: (513) 651-6981 E-mail: nshah@fbtlaw.com jsexton@fbtlaw.com aduprey@fbtlaw.com T&T FARMS: Court Amends Rule 16 Scheduling Order in Porter Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER v. T&T FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. entered an order amending the Rule 16(b) scheduling order in this action as follows: -- The deadline for the parties April 28, 2023 to complete fact discovery is: -- The deadline for the parties to disclose retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) is: for Plaintiff: March 1, 2023 for Defendants: March 31, 2023 -- The deadline to depose Plaintiff's May 31, 2023 named expert(s) is: -- The deadline to depose Defendants' June 30, 2023 named expert(s) is: -- The deadline for the parties to May 12, 2023 engage in mediation is: -- The deadline to file a motion July 14, 2023 for class certification in this matter is: -- The deadline for completion of July 31, 2023 all discovery is: T&T Farms is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KYWGRT at no extra charge.[CC] T.W. GARNER: Hot Sauce Products Not Texas Products, White Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T.W. GARNER FOOD CO., a North Carolina corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-06503 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2022) arises from Defendant's failure to act in accordance with a fundamental precept of truth in advertising and fair play in the marketplace of its Texas Pete(TM) brand hot sauce products. According to the complaint, by representing that its hot sauce products are Texas products, when they are not, Defendant has cheated its way to a market-leading position in the $3 billion-dollar hot-sauce industry at the expense of law-abiding competitors and consumers nationwide who desire authentic Texas hot sauce and reasonably, but incorrectly, believe that is what they are getting when they purchase Texas Pete. Although the Defendant brands the Products "Texas Pete," there is surprisingly nothing Texas about them: unknown to consumers, the Products are standard Louisiana-style hot sauces, made with ingredients sourced outside the state of Texas, at a factory in North Carolina, the suit adds. The Plaintiff also contends that in furtherance of Defendant's deceptive labeling scheme, the Defendant adorns the packaging and labeling with distinctly Texan imagery: the famed white 'lone' star from the Texan flag together with a 'lassoing' cowboy. The Defendant designed the misleading name and imagery to comprise the entire front label, repeated the deception on the prominent product seal, and then etched the Texan imagery into the glass on the front of the bottle. The Plaintiff purchased one bottle of the Texas Pete Original Hot Sauce Product in California within the last four years of the filing of this Complaint. Specifically, White purchased the Product in September 2021 at a Ralph's store in Los Angeles, California for $3.00. T.W. Garner provides food products. The Company offers canning of garlic, green pepper, honey mustard, and seafood cocktail sauces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Zachary Chrzan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com TEAM WASHINGTON: Court Extends Time to File Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOODY v. TEAM WASHINGTON, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01546 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order on motion for extension of time to file deadlines. Plaintiffs deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification will be 60 days following this Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, says Judge Lamberth. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] TELADOC HEALTH: Court Initially Approves Settlement --------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that an order preliminarily approving the terms of a tentative settlement reached by the parties was entered by the court. On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint captioned Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. On May 27, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the terms of a tentative settlement reached by the parties and conditionally certified the settlement class. Teladoc Health is into whole person virtual care based in New York. TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Schneider Suit Over SEC Misreporting ---------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint captioned "Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the company's common stock during the period October 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the company's business, operations, and prospects. Teladoc Health is into whole person virtual care based in New York. TELADOC HEALTH: Retirement System Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the class action complaint captioned "City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al. was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in January 2022. On August 27, 2021, a purported securities class action complaint captioned "City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al." was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of Teladoc Health common stock issued in the Livongo merger. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Livongo merger. The complaint sought certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and equitable or other relief. On January 18, 2022, the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and on January 26, 2022, was refiled in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Teladoc Health is into whole person virtual care based in New York. TIKTOK INC: Greco Files Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TikTok, Inc. The case is styled as Leah Greco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TikTok, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00916-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. TikTok Inc. -- https://www.tiktok.com/ -- operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com TRANQUILITY GARDENS: Taylor et al. File Suit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DURPHY TAYLOR and ANDREA CARTER, Plaintiffs v. TRANQUILITY GARDENS, INC. and TONA KELLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00312 (S.D. Tex., August 29, 2022) bring this complaint as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and/or former non-exempt employees against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health aides - Plaintiff Taylor was from approximately March 2022 to July 2022 and Plaintiff Carter was from approximately February 2021 to the present. Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were responsible for cooking meals, passing out medication, and performing basic personal care duties such as bathing for the patients at the home located at 6146 Southwell Lane, League City, Texas 77573. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants misclassified them and other similarly situated home health aides as independent contractors. Allegedly, the Defendants improperly paid them on a 1099 basis. Because the Plaintiffs lived and worked full-time at the home, they were required to work up to 24 hours per day, and seven days a week for the Defendants. However, their hourly rate was well below the federal minimum wage. In addition, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of per workweek. Instead, they were paid straight time for overtime, regardless of the number of hours they worked, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs demand relief for back wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, plus interest and costs, and all other relief and sums that may be adjudged against the Defendants in the Plaintiffs' favor both individually and on behalf of the members of the Overtime Collective. Tranquility Gardens, Inc. provides home health care services. Tona Keller is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bridget Davidson, Esq. SPACE CITY LAW FIRM 3603 Sierra Pines Drive Houston, TX 77068 Tel: (713) 397-6075 Fax: (713) 583-1107 E-mail: bdavidson@spacecitylaw.com TURTLE BEACH CORP: Faces TCPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------- Turtle Beach Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against VTB, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, alleging violations on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On June 13, 2022, an individual filed a class action lawsuit against VTB in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that VTB violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), by sending marketing-related text messages to the plaintiff and other members of the public who have registered their telephone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons in the United States whose telephone numbers were present on the national Do-Not-Call Registry and received text messages from VTB within the last four years. The complaint seeks statutory damages and an order enjoining VTB from sending further text messages to telephone numbers listed on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. VTB has filed an initial response to the complaint. The court has not yet set a trial date for this matter. Turtle Beach Corporation headquartered in White Plains, New York and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier audio and gaming technology company based in New York. TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court ---------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that on February 18, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against the company, Tyson Fresh Meats, and other beef packer defendants in the Supreme Court of British Columbia styled "Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated et al." The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price of beef, as well as to fix, maintain, control, prevent, or lessen the production or supply of beef by agreeing to reduce the number of cattle slaughtered, reduce slaughter capacity, refrain from increasing slaughter and beef processing capacity, limit purchases of cattle on the cash market, and coordinate purchases of and bids for cattle to lower the supply of fed cattle. The plaintiff advances causes of action under the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and the Civil Code of Québec. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class comprised of all persons or entities in Canada who directly or indirectly purchased beef in Canada, either for resale or for their own consumption between January 1, 2015, and the present and seeks declarations regarding the alleged conspiracy, general damages, aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and interest. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food company based in Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Growers Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement on August 23, 2021 and final approval on February 18, 2022 for putative class action complaints filed against the company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on January 27, 2017 and March 26, 2017, styled "In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation." The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and California. All actions were subsequently consolidated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. In June 2021, the company reached an agreement to settle with the putative class of broiler chicken farmers all claims raised in this consolidated action on terms not material to the company for which the company recorded an accrual in its Consolidated Financial Statements as of October 2, 2021. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on August 23, 2021 and final approval on February 18, 2022. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food company based in Arkansas. UDEMY INC: Consumer Suit in California Court Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Udemy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on August 23, 2021, a putative class action complaint captioned "Williams v. Udemy, Inc.," Case No. 3:21-CV-06489, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of California's unfair competition and false advertising statutes as well as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with its pricing practices. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits. On February 23, 2022, the court entered an order staying litigation pending arbitration. Udemy is a marketplace platform for teaching and learning based in California. UNITED COLLECTION: Wins Summary Judgment in Manopla FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Re: Sarah Manopla v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 19-16777-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants United Collection's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In order to prevail on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, a plaintiff must establish that: "(1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a 'debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt." On its Motion, the Defendant only challenges the Plaintiff's showing as to the fourth prong. On July 11, 2019, Manopla filed a one-count putative class action Complaint in state court alleging a violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. The Defendant subsequently removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). The Court has original federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the Plaintiff's claim arises under a federal statute. Sometime prior to May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff incurred an obligation (the "Debt") to Department Stores National Bank ("DSNB") for the purchase of a sectional sofa from Macy's, and DSNB/Macy's filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking to collect the Debt. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff retained counsel to represent her in connection with the suit. At some point, Citibank N.A. contracted the Defendant to collect the Debt. On May 29, 2019, the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to collect the Debt. The Plaintiff makes no allegation that she or her attorney informed it that she was represented by counsel in connection with the Debt. Instead, she assumed that DSNB/Macy's would informed the Defendant that she was represented by counsel in connection with the Debt. The Defendant, however, did not learn that she was represented by counsel until it was served with her Compliant on July 16, 2019. The Plaintiff asserts a single claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(a)(2), alleging that the Defendant contacted her in connection with the collection of a debt at a time when she was known to be represented by an attorney. Under Section 1692c(a)(2), she must establish that: "(1) prior to the debt collector's communication with her, she was represented by counsel with respect to the debt owed to the creditor; and (2) the debt collector had actual knowledge that she was represented by counsel with respect to the debt owed to the creditor." It is undisputed that the Defendants lacked actual knowledge that the Plaintiff was represented by counsel in connection with the Debt. The Plaintiff never notified it that she was represented by counsel. To the extent she relies on constructive, or imputed knowledge of representation, her claim s as a matter of law. Accordingly, Judge Quraishi grants the Defendant's Motion, and enters judgment against the Plaintiff. The Clerk's Office is instructed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2022 Letter Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/356wfe9d from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Class of Plan Participants Certified in King Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard A. Hertling of the United States Court of Federal Claims grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM KING, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 18-1115 (Fed. Cl.). In this fifth-amendment takings case, Plaintiffs William King, Anthony Gugliuzza, and Stephen Dardzinski move for class certification, for the appointment of the three Named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and for the appointment of Messing & Spector LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel. The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion. In 2014, Congress passed the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act ("MPRA"), which authorized pension plans in "critical and declining status" to apply to the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the vested benefits of plan participants and beneficiaries. The Treasury, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") and the Department of Labor, had to review a pension plan's application under the MPRA and, if the application satisfied certain criteria, administer an election in which plan participants would vote on the proposed reductions. If the proposed reductions met the criteria under the MPRA, Treasury would issue final authorization for the reduction of benefits, which the pension plan could implement through an amendment of its plan documents. The Plaintiffs are vested participants of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The Teamsters Fund applied to reduce the benefits of many vested plan participants and beneficiaries under the MPRA. Its application was approved and, after a vote was held, Treasury authorized the Fund to suspend certain pension benefits. The reduction took effect on Oct. 1, 2017. Since then, the Named Plaintiffs contend that they have suffered a 29-percent reduction in their monthly pension benefits. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA"), pension plans that reduced their benefits under the MPRA may apply to PBGC for special financial assistance to restore participants' benefits and improve the plans' financial stability. After withdrawing its initial application, the Teamsters Fund submitted a revised application on July 21, 2022. Under the time limits prescribed by the ARPA, a decision on this application is expected no later than Nov. 18, 2022. After the reduction to their pension benefits took effect, the Plaintiffs sued for a taking, alleging that the federal government, in approving the reduction, effected a taking in violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. After Judge Nancy B. Firestone declined to dismiss the suit, the parties engaged in limited discovery. The Defendant then moved for summary judgment. After several delays related to the enactment of the ARPA, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs moved to certify the class on June 24, 2022. The Defendant filed a response brief on Aug. 9, 2022. The Court held a status conference on Aug. 24, 2022, to address the motion. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class, with the three Named Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: Any person (whether a participant, beneficiary, or other individual) who received one or more pension payments from the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Fund) on or after October 1, 2017 unless either (1) that person was an Active Participant as of October 1, 2017 or (2) all pension payments that were received by that person since October 1, 2017 were reduced by 0% relative to the sum the recipient would have been entitled to receive if the Defendant had not authorized the Fund, in or around September 2017, to reduce certain pension benefits under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. "Active Participant" is defined under the terms of the plan documents as "a Participant on whose behalf a Contributing Employer is required to make contributions to the Plan." The proposed class includes both participants and beneficiaries. Additionally, the Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Messing & Spector LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel for the certified class. The Defendant does not oppose class certification, the appointment of the named plaintiffs as class representatives, or the appointment of the proposed class counsel. In its response brief, however, the Defendant raises two concerns: (1) that beginning the opt-in process may confuse potential class members because of the pending ARPA application, and (2) that class members who voted to approve the benefit reductions under the MPRA or who did not vote should not be eligible to recover if the Court ultimately holds that a taking occurred. Judge Hertling finds that the Plaintiffs' motion is timely. The taking allegedly occurred in October 2017, so the six-year statute of limitations does not run until Oct. 2023. If the Plaintiffs' filing of the complaint did not toll the statute of limitations, then their filing of the motion for class certification did toll the statute of limitations. Importantly, Judge Hertling notes that if the class is certified, the statute of limitations would remain tolled while prospective class members are permitted to opt into the class. The parties could, therefore, avoid confusion among potential class members by waiting until the Teamsters Fund's ARPA application is resolved before distributing the notice. Notwithstanding the Defendant's lack of opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court must independently verify that the Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). RCFC 23(a) provides that representatives of a class may sue only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The proposed class comprises 10,936 eligible individuals, who experienced a reduction in their pension benefits and were not "active participants" in the Teamsters Fund. Judge Hertling holds that all requirements for class certification are met: (1) the class is sufficiently numerous, (2) there is a common legal question regarding government action predominating the Plaintiffs' claims, (3) the representative parties' claims are typical of their class, (4) the representative parties will adequately represent the class, and (5) a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication of this case. Accordingly, Judge Hertling rules that class certification is appropriate, and the three Named Plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class. The Plaintiffs request the appointment of Messing & Spector LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel for the certified class. Judge Hertling says Noah Messing, Phillip Spector, and Jason Kim have already done exceptional work identifying and investigating potential claims in this action. They are also experienced in complex litigation, having expertise in all subject matters relevant to this case, including pension law and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, class actions, and pre-trial and appellate advocacy. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have already produced high-quality work in the case, and the Court does not doubt that counsel will continue to commit significant resources to representation of the class in the future. Accordingly, Messing & Spector LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP are approved as class counsel. Although it does not oppose class certification, in its reply brief, the Defendant raises a separate legal question affecting a subset of potential class members. In the election administered by the government, some plan participants voted to accept the MPRA reductions, other participants voted to reject them, and many participants did not vote at all. The Defendant indicates that it may argue that the plan participants, who voted to approve the reduction of benefits, and the participants, who did not vote at all, should be excluded from the class and should not obtain relief, if the Court holds that a taking occurred. Without prejudice to the merits of the Defendant's potential argument, the Court finds it administratively expedient to categorize the class members during the opt-in period into subclasses. Accordingly, as it explained on the record during the status conference on Aug. 24, 2022, the parties are directed to propose definitions for three subclasses: one comprising class members, who voted to reject the benefit reductions, a second comprising class members, who did not vote, and a third comprising class members, who voted to approve the benefit reductions. Accordingly, Judge Hertling rules that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. The Court certifies the following class pursuant to RCFC 23: Any person (whether a participant, beneficiary, or other individual) who received one or more pension payments from the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Fund) on or after October 1, 2017 unless either (1) that person was an Active Participant as of October 1, 2017 or (2) all pension payments that were received by that person since October 1, 2017 were reduced by 0% relative to the sum the recipient would have been entitled to receive if the Defendant had not authorized the Fund, in or around September 2017, to reduce certain pension benefits under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. The Court designates William King, Anthony Gugliuzza, and Stephen Dardzinski as representatives of the class. The Court appoints Messing & Spector LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel. The parties will meet and confer for purposes of proposing definitions for the three proposed subclasses. The Plaintiffs will file a motion proposing subclasses no later than Sept. 23, 2022. The Plaintiffs will indicate in their motion whether the Defendant consents to the proposed definitions. If the Defendant does not consent, the Defendant will file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Plaintiffs will file any reply no later than Oct. 14, 2022. Additionally, no later than Oct. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs will file a motion seeking the Court's approval of a proposed notice to prospective class members complying with RCFC 23(c)(2)(B). The Plaintiffs will include in their filing the proposed notice, the proposed opt-in notice form, and the proposed plan for the distribution of notice and the opt-in period, including the date by which potential members must opt in and the specific method by which the notice will be provided. The Plaintiffs will also indicate whether the Defendant consents to their motion. If the Defendant does not consent to the Plaintiffs' motion, the Defendant will file a response no later than Nov. 15, 2022. The Plaintiffs will file any reply no later than Nov. 25, 2022. To the extent the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion, the Plaintiffs will plan to delay distribution of the notice until after resolution of the Fund's pending ARPA application and will allow sufficient time thereafter for class members to opt into the case. Following the parties' submissions, the Court will convene the parties for a status conference to establish a schedule for further merits briefing. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8r2vta from Leagle.com. VANTAGECARE INSURANCE: Hoy Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ TOBY HOY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VANTAGECARE INSURANCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00281-JEG-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, August 29, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged abusive telephone marketing practices that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's residential telephone numbers (515) 808-XXXX, that was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry in January 2021. The Defendant allegedly uses telemarketing calls to random individuals in an attempt to promote its services. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance., says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from making telephone calls advertising their goods and services to any number on the NDNC Registry in the future, as well as treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. VantageCare Insurance LLC markets and sells insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Mail, Esq. PURYEAR LAW P.C. 3719 Bridge Ave., Suite 6 Davenport, IA 52807 Tel: (563) 265-8344 E-mail: mail@puryearlaw.com - and – Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Buckley Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE BUCKLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF MICHIGAN, PC, JOHN ILJAS and MAZEN BAZZI, Case No. 5:21-cv-12539-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: A. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action on behalf of: "all Hourly Employees employed by Defendants within the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and to approve notice to those current and former employees;" B. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join and proposed method of distribution including mailing and emailing; C. Approving the form and content; D. Directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact information of each putative collective member in an electronically importable and malleable format, such as Excel, within seven days after this Court’s Order is entered; E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the date on which the Defendants produce the collective members' names and contact information, in which collective members may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee. The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other claims. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TT6Sj4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by David F. Greco, Esq. Ertis Tereziu, Esq. Northwestern Highway, Suite 425 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 865-0001 E-mail: dgreco@gmgmklaw.com eterezui@gmgmklaw.com VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settles Wolther Suit ---------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the final approval of the class action settlement has been granted by the Superior Court of the State of California. On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned "Wolther v. Maheshwari et al.," Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition. On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute. In October 2021, Veeco and the court-appointed class representatives signed an agreement to settle the Wolther Action on a class-wide basis for $15.0 million, subject to court approval and class members' opportunity to object and opt-out. On June 27, 2022, the court granted final approval to the class action settlement. Veeco Instruments Inc. is a manufacturer of semiconductor process equipment based in New York. VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Brantley Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Verra Mobility Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of local ordinances and the state constitution. "Brantley v. City of Gretna" is a class action lawsuit filed in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against the City of Gretna and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. In April 2016, the plaintiffs' class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleged that the city's safety camera program was implemented and operated in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution, including that the city's hearing process violated the plaintiffs' due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid. The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. have appealed the trial court's ruling granting class certification, which remains pending. Verra Mobility Corporation is a provider of smart mobility technology solutions and services based in Arizona. VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Vertiv Holdings Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on May 3, 2022, a putative securities class action, "In re Vertiv Holdings Co Securities Litigation," 22-cv-3572, was filed against Vertiv, certain of the Company's officers and directors, and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that certain of the company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These claims are asserted on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities that purchased Vertiv securities between February 24, 2021 and February 23, 2022 and/or purchased Vertiv securities in or traceable to the November 4, 2021 secondary public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale registration statement. Vertiv Holdings Co. is into the design, manufacturing and servicing of critical digital infrastructure technology based in Ohio. VIEW RAY INC: Plymouth County Appeals Dismissal of Suit ------------------------------------------------------- ViewRay, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the lead plaintiff of a class action complaint filed a notice of its intent to appeal and remains pending before the Court of Appeals. On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief financial officer. On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff, and on February 28, 2020 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting securities fraud claims against the Company, its chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. Now captioned "Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al.," the amended complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts concerning the Company's business, operations, and financial results, and seeks damages, interest, and other relief. On August 25, 2021, the District Court dismissed the lead plaintiff's second amended complaint, with prejudice. On September 17, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed notice of its intent to appeal the District Court's opinion and order dismissing the complaint to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were presented by the parties on July 28, 2022 and the appeal remains pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. ViewRay, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets the "MRIdian" MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy System based in Ohio. VROOM INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Vehicle Registration --------------------------------------------------------- Vroom, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that in July 2021 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court, respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom's titling and registration of sold vehicles captioned "Emely Reyes Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom Inc." Vroom Inc. is an innovative, end-to-end ecommerce platform based in Texas. VROOM INC: Faces Sonne Suit Over Vehicle Registration ----------------------------------------------------- Vroom, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that in July 2021 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court, respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom's titling and registration of sold vehicles captioned "Blake Sonne, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom, Inc.," CJ-2022-822.. Vroom Inc. is an innovative, end-to-end ecommerce platform based in Texas. WAITR HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Breach of Contract Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Waitr Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that a proposed class action settlement has been reached to resolve the litigation. In April 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a class action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant partners, captioned "Bobby's Country Cookin', LLC, et al v. Waitr Holdings Inc.," which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and they seek recovery on behalf of themselves and two separate classes. Based on the current class definitions, as many as 10,000 restaurant partners could be members of the two separate classes at issue. In February 2022, the parties reached a proposed settlement in principle to resolve the litigation in its entirety and requested a stay of the pending litigation. Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online ordering technology platform based Louisiana. WESTWEGO, LA: Court Won't Prosecute Patton Suit as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana refuses to prosecute as a class action the lawsuit entitled JOHN WESLEY PATTON v. CITY OF WESTWEGO, ET AL., SECTION: "B"(1), Case No. 20-3408 (E.D. La.). The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Partial Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure of any party to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Partial Report and Recommendation, approves the Partial Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Therefore, it ordered that the Plaintiff's request to prosecute this matter as a class action is denied. All of the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 against all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. All of their claims brought pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733 against all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The motion to dismiss filed by the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Paul D. Connick, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Rosenbach, Laura Schneidau, and Zachary Popovich, and Victims Assistance Program Coordinator Melanie Villemarette is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against those Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the "Office of District Judges" of the Louisiana Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against those Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The motion to dismiss filed by the City of Kenner and Mayor Ben Zahn is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against those Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by the Kenner Police Department, Chief Michael Glaser, Lieutenant Michael Cunningham, Detective Bryan S. Weiter, and Officer Joseph Scamardo is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against those Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by former Westwego Mayor Joe Peoples, the City of Westwego, the Westwego Police Department, Chief of Police Donald J. Munch, Sr., and Officers Christopher Fisher, Cory Boudreaux, Eric Orlando, Randy Mason, Sam Norton, Angel Lopez, Blake Lawson, Owen Valence, and Joshua Brown is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against those Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by John Courtney Wilson is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Wilson are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by Louisiana Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court Judicial Administrator Renee Hatch Aguilar is granted. The claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against her in her individual capacity are dismissed with prejudice, the claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against her in her official-capacity for monetary damages are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, and the claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against her in her official capacity for prospective injunctive relief are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by the Parish of Jefferson is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against that Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss filed by Louisiana Twenty Forth Judicial District Defender Richard M. Tompson is granted and the Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Tompson are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's motions for default are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 29, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mumpkeks from Leagle.com. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Ct. Tosses as Moot All Pending Bids in Briggs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deshawn Briggs, et al., v. William Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02684-EJM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Eric J. Markovich entered an order denying as moot all pending motions in light of the Parties' joint report on mediation and the contained notice of settlement. If the settlement is not finalized, the Parties shall be given leave to re-urge the motions as appropriate the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AUoSkm at no extra charge.[CC] WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Discrimination-Related Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that on May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois. XPO LOGISTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Labul Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the first amended consolidated complaint's dismissal with prejudice. No petition for rehearing of the appellate decision was done. On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned "Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in its public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint against us and a current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the case. On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal. On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the first amended consolidated compliant. The Pension Funds did not petition for rehearing of the appellate decision by the July 14, 2022 deadline. The Pension Funds' deadline to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review is September 28, 2022. XPO Logistics, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is a provider of freight transportation services based in Connecticut. ********* 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 ***