/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220922.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 184 Headlines 12 CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages 7-ELEVEN INC: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois A.K. RIKKS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Dave Sues Over Mislabeling of Product ADVANCED MECHANICAL: Sidoti Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls AETNA LIFE: Bid to Compel Docs & Info From Prolow Plaintiffs Denied AGENTRA LLC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Abboud Suit AKSYS GAMES LOCALIZATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMC NETWORKS INC: Mangum Files Suit in N.D. Illinois AMC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in Ill. for Privacy Violations AP GAS & ELECTRIC: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Winn Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ASHER LOGISTIX: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Capone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Buttino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASTRAZENACA PLC: Wins Suit as Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Claims AUSSIE HOME: May Face Class Action for Unfair Mortgage Policy AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31 BCE-MACH LLC: Wake Energy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma BEIERSDORF & BAYER: Agrees to Settle Benzene Class Suit for $2.3-M BIG BEAVER: Xu Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Norwood B3 Case Granted BUMBLE LANE HOLDING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CASSADY ROOFING: Palomo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation CIGNA CORP: Sued by Medical Societies for Underpaid Insurance DIGNITY HEALTH: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Van Bebber Suit DR. SQUATCH: Fleming Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 2nd Amended Complaint ELECTROMED INC: To Submit Bid to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Defective Minivans FEDEX GROUND: Odea Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages FIRST TEAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Lalli Class Suit FLORIDA: Tries to Delay Potential Class Suit for Medicaid Program GALLERY M. INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. GUARISCO FINE ARTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unsafe Jail Conditions INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ISLAND PURSUIT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York J M SMUCKER: Faces Class Suits Over Folgers Coffee and Jif Products JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Pelvic Mesh Suits for $204M JSP LIFE AGENCY: De La Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages JUMPER MAYBACH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. KANGA CARE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KENTUCKY BRANDED: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KEYSTONE DOOR: Brodeur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 1 KORENS USA: Class Settlement in Taunton FLSA Suit Wins Prelim. Nod LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Due LINCARE HOLDINGS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages LISA-MARIE'S: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOUISIANA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McZeal v. OGB, State LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Interception of Communications MEDTRONIC PLC: Trustees of Welfare Sues Over Exchange Act Violation MEMORIAL HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Myers Suit Has Final OK MGH GOURMET: Galdamez Sues Over Labor Code Violations MINISO GROUP: Faces Investors' Lawsuits Over Securities Claims MODA GROUP: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOVE INC: Ganaway Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data MUSTANG PLUMBING: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Negrete Confirmed NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Grice Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Appeal TRO in Homaidan Suit NEVADA DINER: Urgiles Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida OVERBY-SEAWELL: Samsel Files Suit in N.D. Georgia PARTS ID INC: Hasson Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania RAMON NAVA: Hernandez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RAPID PLASTICS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches Class Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH: Williams Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 7 SILVER AND PEWTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SMELLY PROOF: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Suit Removed to C.D. California STAUNTON AREA: Faces Class Action Suit for Alleged BIPA Violations STITCH FIX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 25 TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit for Race-Based Hiring Practices TMP INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRI CITY TRANSPORT: Heichel Sues Over Failure to Pay Full Wages TWITTER INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Due U.S. MERCHANTS: Pauli Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages UNITED MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Norwood FDCPA Class Suit UNITED STAFFING: Cannot Contact Class Members in Magtoles Suit VISIBLE CHANGES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VITALANT: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Labor, FCRA Violations WALMART INC: Luthe Files Suit Over Customers' Privacy Violations WALMART INC: Luthe Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII WEALTHSTREAM ADVISORS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WINTEROWD FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. WISCONSIN: Sued for Lack of Legal Defense for Low Income Defendants WP OPERATIONS: Clements' Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ZINNIA FOLK ARTS: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* 12 CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Romario Lorenzo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 12 CHAIRS BYN LLC d/b/a 12 CHAIRS CAFE, Case No. 1:22-cv-05350-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by: the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor Law; the overtime provisions of the FLSA; the overtime provisions of NYLL; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of information under the NYLL; the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate information, NYLL; and any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts. The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, well over 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL require. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher, cook, kitchen helper, and occasional delivery person for the Defendants from January 2017 to December 14, 2020. The Defendants owns and operates an Israeli Restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Leon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Wilim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04886 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. 7-Eleven, Inc. -- http://www.7-eleven.com/-- is an American multinational chain of retail convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[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 A.K. RIKKS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.K. Rikks, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A.K. Rikks, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07755 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A.K. Rikk's -- https://akrikks.com/ -- is a luxury online retailer for men's & women's clothing, shoes, accessories + home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Dave Sues Over Mislabeling of Product ---------------------------------------------------------- Prushti Dave, Arlene Bergum, Emily Depol, Keya Johnigan, and Brianna Mckay, 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, and WALGREEN CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-05191-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2022), is brought arising 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. Millions of people buy and rely upon the Ovulation Test Kits for family planning purposes. The Defendants' Kits are 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 Ovulation Test Kits do not predict ovulation with 99% or greater accuracy. The Kits merely test levels of Luteinizing Hormone ("LH"), which may or may not indicate ovulation will occur. 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. The 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 "Luteinizing Hormone Test Kits," which 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 each year from unwitting consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased, for their own use ovulation test kits marketed and sold by the Defendants. The Defendants produce, market, label and sell various ovulation test kits in the state of California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Finkelstein, Esq. Brent S. Colasurdo, Esq. UMBERG ZIPSER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 750 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 679-0052 Email: mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com bcolasurdo@umbergzipser.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 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Email: pbinkow@glancylaw.com jrotter@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com ADVANCED MECHANICAL: Sidoti Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Sidoti, Carl Sidoti, and Eric Cundiff, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. ADVANCED MECHANICAL PLUS, LLC, REMCO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, LLC DBA RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01602 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, seek all available relief under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendants have a companywide policy called the "7-minute Rule" rounding policy that applies to all Technicians, including the Plaintiffs. Under Defendant's "7-minute Rule" rounding policy, Technicians', including the Plaintiffs', Clock-in and Clock-out time is rolled back to the latest 15-minute increment if the punch is from minutes one through seven and rolled forward to the next 15-minute increment if the punch time is from minutes eight through fifteen. The Defendants' company-wide "7-minute Rule" impacts the extent of how much time Technicians, including the Plaintiffs are not paid at the beginning of their workday and/or at the end of their workday. As a result of the Defendants' willful and illegal companywide pay practices and policies, the Defendants did not pay Technicians, including the Plaintiffs, for all hours worked and for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek did not pay them at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members all of their wages within 30 days of when they performed the work. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtimes wages with respect to the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members in this action. The Plaintiff are current and former Technicians employed by the Defendant. The Defendant is a mechanical services firm based in Lima, Ohio that provides HVAC, refrigeration, plumbing, electrical and kitchen equipment services to restaurants and retail units in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and Western Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - and - Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A. 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Phone: (614) 221-4035 Fax: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO., Case No. 22-004345-CI (Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant's unlawful telephonic sales calls. To promote its goods and services, the 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. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party." The Defendant is a retailer of consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 422–7782 Facsimile: (813) 422–7783 Email: ben@theKRfirm.com AETNA LIFE: Bid to Compel Docs & Info From Prolow Plaintiffs Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHARON PROLOW and MARK LEMMERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80545 (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge William Matthewman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents and Information from Plaintiffs without prejudice. The cause is before the Court upon the following: (1) the Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents and Information from Plaintiffs; the Plaintiffs Sharon Prolow and Mark Lemmerman's Response, the Defendant's Reply; and the parties' Joint Notice on Discovery Status, filed pursuant to the Court's Aug. 8, 2022 Paperless Order. The Court held a hearing on the Motion via Zoom video teleconference, on Aug. 23, 2022. After the hearing, the Plaintiffs submitted certain documents for in camera review. The Court has now had the opportunity to carefully review those documents. In the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman -- individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated -- allege that "they were wrongfully denied coverage for Proton Beam Radiation Therapy ('PBRT') under employee welfare benefit plans issued by their employers and administered by the Defendant," bringing the putative class action claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Utilizing the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as the operative complaint, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. To this end, it found that the Defendant's "decision to deny PBRT coverage was de novo wrong as to both Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman and reversed the Defendant's decision to deny PBRT benefits." Accordingly, it found the Plaintiffs entitled to damages in their capacity as class representatives, ruling that the case "shall proceed to the class certification processes and trial on the remaining issues pursuant to the Court's extant Scheduling Order." After numerous discovery disputes in the interim period, the Defendant filed the instant Motion. Within the Motion, it moved to compel: (1) "Ms. Prolow to produce her employment agreement with AllianceBernstein"; (2) "Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman to produce their engagement letters with their legal counsel in this action"; and (3) "Ms. Prolow to respond fully to Aetna's Interrogatory regarding the damages she seeks in this case." However, following the filing of the Plaintiffs' Response, the Defendant's Reply, and the parties' Joint Notice, only one of the three bases for which the Defendant initially filed its Motion remained. Specifically, in the parties' Joint Notice -- filed in anticipation of the Aug. 23, 2022 Zoom VTC hearing -- the parties represented that Court intervention was required only as to the portion of the Defendant's Motion seeking to compel engagement letters between Plaintiffs and their legal counsel. Consequently, during the Aug. 23, 2022 Zoom VTC hearing, the Court heard argument on the Defendant's Motion solely on that matter. At the hearing, the Court reserved ruling and required the Plaintiffs' counsel to submit their two engagement letters with the counsel to Chambers for purposes of conducting in camera review. That same day, the Plaintiffs emailed the two engagement letters at issue to the Chambers for the Court's review. Due to the parties resolving two of the three issues raised in the Defendant's Motion, Judge Matthewman discusses only the parties' positions pertaining to the remaining issue -- The Plaintiffs' production of engagement letters with their legal counsel. In the Defendant's Motion, the Defendant seeks to compel "Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman to produce their engagement letters with their legal counsel in this action." It maintains that the Plaintiffs have failed to distinguish its cited cases, which establish that matters involving the receipt of fees from a client are not generally privileged. Moreover, with respect to the Plaintiffs' objections based on relevancy and proportionality, it contends that "the engagement letters are highly relevant to its damages defense, given that the Plaintiffs' counsel will undoubtedly seek attorney fees as part of a damages award." In their Response, the Plaintiffs object to production of engagement letters with counsel solely on the basis of privilege and relevancy. They argue that "courts in this district have held that class representatives' engagement letters with counsel are not discoverable, absent a showing by the defendant that a conflict of interest exists." They state that the engagement letters at issue do not promise or propose incentive payments to them, stating that they have followed, and will continue to follow and abide by, current Eleventh Circuit precedent. Additionally, they argue that the cases the Defendant cites in support of disclosure of the engagement letters are inapposite and do not address whether fee arrangements are relevant in class action suits. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that a motion to compel engagement agreements to determine fees and costs is premature and may never be required, as the parties "must comply with Local Rule 7.3" first. In their Reply, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' engagement letters -- which "address the Plaintiffs' attorney fees and the financing of the lawsuit, which goes to the Plaintiffs' suitability as representatives of the putative class" -- is not privileged information. Turning to relevancy, it argues that the Plaintiffs' engagement letters "are relevant to the claims and defenses in the case." Finally, it contends that the Plaintiffs' citation to certain case is inapplicable to the case at hand. Judge Matthewman finds that the Defendant relies upon the body of law establishing that retainer or engagement agreements (or letters) are both discoverable and relevant where "part of a plaintiff's prayer for relief is his attorney's fees. The Plaintiffs in turn maintain that the relevancy of engagement agreements is of a different nature in the class action context. Judge Matthewman holds that he need not address the intricacies of engagement letters in the class action context or whether the Defendant's distinction has a meaningful impact on any privilege or relevancy analysis, as the Plaintiffs have provided the Court with the engagement letters of Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman for in camera review. And, review of those engagement letters evidences a lack of relevancy at this time. The two engagement letters are standard contingency fee agreements which do not contain any hourly rates, and which do not contain any information relevant to the Plaintiffs' ability to serve as class representatives. Moreover, while the case involves a situation in which the Court has determined that the Plaintiffs (as the class representatives) are entitled to damages, the Court has not yet certified the putative class or made any determination on class damages. Therefore, as in Devries, Judge Matthewman finds that the Plaintiffs' engagement letters with their legal counsel are not relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, despite the Plaintiffs' objections based on both privilege and relevancy, Judge Matthewman finds this discovery dispute can be settled entirely on relevancy, without the necessity of addressing the privilege arguments, and that the Defendant's Motion must be denied due to a lack of relevancy at this stage of the action. In light of the foregoing, Judge Matthewman denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents and Information from Plaintiffs. This denial is without prejudice to the Defendant's ability to seek such discovery (the two engagement letters) in the future, should it have a good faith basis to do so, or if necessary, during the Local Rule 7.3 procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/24phyes9 from Leagle.com. AGENTRA LLC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Abboud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGENTRA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-00120-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants in part and denies in part Agentra's motion for summary judgment and denies Abboud's motion for summary judgment. Ms. Abboud asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against Agentra, a Texas-based insurance agency. She challenges phone calls and text messages that Agentra (or a third-party acting on its behalf and for its benefit) placed to her and other cellphone users allegedly in violation of the TCPA. Ms. Abboud alleged receipt of both texts and calls from Agentra, and the Court previously certified two classes of similarly situated individuals: (1) consumers who received one or more text messages from Agentra in the same manner as Abboud; and (2) consumers who were called on their cellphones by Agentra to promote insurance products using the same equipment that was used to call Abboud. Both parties now move for summary judgment. In Agentra's Motion for Summary Judgment, it raises three main arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. The first is that all of Abboud's claims are barred because of a settlement in another class-action TCPA case. If Agentra wins this argument, it would dispose of all of Abboud's claims -- those based on calls and those based on text messages. Agentra's second argument is that Abboud consented to receiving the text messages, and thus that the Court should dismiss Abboud's text-message claims. Its third argument is also about Abboud's text-message claims; it argues that the software that it uses to send text messages does not qualify as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA. Judge Starr rejects Agentra's first argument, accepts the second, and need not address the third. First, he explains that the test for res judicata has four elements: (1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions." Generally, res judicata applies to class actions. In the case, he determines that the parties genuinely dispute whether Abboud was sold an Agentra product and, therefore, he cannot find that Abboud's claims are barred under principles of res judicata. Because he finds that the first element of res judicata's test is not satisfied, he does not address the remaining three elements. Judge Starr also opines that Agentra is entitled to summary judgment on Abboud's text-message claims because she consented to receiving the text messages. He need not "assume" anything about Agentra's standard practice, because it provided evidence of it. Abboud provides no caselaw supporting her argument that Agentra can't win summary judgment based on the type of evidence it provided As to Abboud's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Starr finds several problems. First, she filed it after the deadline had passed and she did not seek the Court's leave to do so. Second, her brief has substantive problems. She filed a combined brief in support of her motion for summary judgment and in response to Agentra's motion for summary judgment. If the Court very generously interpreted Abboud's brief, the singular argument that she advances in favor of summary judgment for her involves her text-message claims and is that Agentra's text-message software is an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA. But she loses on that claim because Agentra has shown that Abboud consented to receiving the text messages. And the rest of Abboud's motion is responsive to Agentra's motion for summary judgment. So, Abboud has failed to show that she is entitled to summary judgment on any of her claims. In light of the foregoing, Judge Starr grants in part and denies in part Agentra's motion for summary judgment. He grants the motion with respect to Abboud's text-message claims and dismisses with prejudice those claims. He denies the motion with respect to Abboud's phone-call claims. Judge Starr denies Abboud's motion for summary judgment. She orders the parties to submit a status report by Sept. 28, 2022. In that status report, they should indicate which, if either, of the following days would be suitable to try the case: November 28 or December 5. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bmy42hy from Leagle.com. AKSYS GAMES LOCALIZATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aksys Games Localization, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aksys Games Localization, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07775 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aksys Games Localization, Inc. -- https://aksysgames.com/ -- is a video game publisher that specializes in translating and localizing Japanese video games for English-speaking markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com AMC NETWORKS INC: Mangum Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Networks Inc. The case is styled as Daineira Mangum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMC Networks Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04857 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. AMC Networks -- https://www.amcnetworks.com/ -- is an American entertainment company headquartered in 11 Penn Plaza, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com AMC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in Ill. for Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Street Media Writer Wilson Fay shared that Daineira Mangum filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against AMC Networks, Inc. alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The complaint states that the VPPA was initially passed in 1988 to protect the privacy of individuals' and their families' video rental, purchase and viewing data. Further, it states that VPPA was passed to protect with the belief that such viewing information "reveal our likes and dislikes, our interests and our whims" and is essential to an individual's right to privacy. Recently, several other corporations have been targeted under the VPPA or similar state laws including Apple, Bloomberg News, Patreon, HGTV, and Amazon. In the present complaint, the plaintiff alleges that AMC has a practice of knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information and viewing information to Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook. The plaintiff alleges that AMC collected and shared information through its video media provider Shudder. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant installed Facebook's tracking pixel code on Shudder allowing it to invisibly collect users' information when digital subscribers enter the streaming service or its accompanying app to view content. Additionally, the complaint states that Shudder then tracks and discloses to Facebook the digital subscriber's viewed video media and their Facebook ID. Further, the complaint purports that this occurs even when the digital subscriber has not shared or consented to share such information, and the defendant in turn profits from providing the information to Facebook. The plaintiff argues that AMC chose to disregard her and hundreds of thousands of other Shudder digital subscribers' statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to Facebook. Accordingly, the plaintiff brought the present suit on behalf of herself, who has been a Shudder digital subscriber since 2021, and all other digital subscribers to Shudder who had their personal viewing information disclosed to Facebook by AMC. The complaint alleges a single cause of action, violation of the VPPA, and seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, restitution, $2,500 for each class member in accordance with the VPPA, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise and Bailey & Glasser LLP.[GN] AP GAS & ELECTRIC: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AP Gas & Electric (PA), LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. AP Gas & Electric (PA), LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01299-MPK (W.D. Pa., Sept. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. AP Gas & Electric (APG&E) -- https://www.apge.com/ -- provides affordable electricity to residential and commercial customer in Texas, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, & Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. P.O. Box 244 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Phone: (814) 777-5080 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Winn Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arbella Mutual Insurance Company. case is styled as Kendra Winn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2284CV02064 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." Arbella Insurance -- https://www.arbella.com/ -- is a regional property and casualty insurance company providing business and personal insurance in Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as business insurance in Rhode Island and New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Forrest, Esq. Kevin John McCullough, Esq. John Richard Yasi, Esq. FORREST, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASIANDYASI, PC 2 Salem Green Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 - and - David Relethford, Esq. LAMOTHE, MCNIFF, RELETHFORD, LLC 201 Washington St., Suite 205 SALEM, MA 01970 The Defendant is represented by: Roberta R. Fitzpatrick, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERTA FITZPATRICK 101 Arch St 17th Floor Boston, MA 02110 ASHER LOGISTIX: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Peralta, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. ASHER LOGISTIX, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29327 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's failure tp pay all wages, including minimum, regular, overtime and doubletime wages in violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Order. These claims are based on the Defendants' failures to: pay all wages, including minimum, regular, overtime and doubletime wages, earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; provide all meal periods; authorize and permit all rest breaks; Pay premium wages for unprovided meal periods; pay premium wages for unprovided rest breaks; Indemnify for necessary work-related expenditures; issue only accurate and complete itemized wage statements; timely pay wages during employment; timely pay wages upon termination of employment; and maintain accurate employment records, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in El Monte in the position of hourly, non-exempt delivery driver. Asher Logistix, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California and also a citizen of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maya Cheaitani, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bivd., PMB 42554 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: (213) 725-9094 Fax: (213) 634-2485 Email: david@spivaklaw.com maya@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 4276 Katella Ave., Suite 301 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Phone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Email: walter@uelglaw.com ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Capone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as Gina Capone, Michael Bush, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Incorporated Village of Malverne, The Board of Assessment Review of the Incorporated Village of Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 612070/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 9, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Malverne -- https://www.malvernevillage.org/ -- is a village in the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Buttino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Buttino, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents, Case No. 612071/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 9, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASTRAZENACA PLC: Wins Suit as Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Endpoints News Associate Editor Paul Schloesser wrote that AstraZeneca never got its Covid-19 vaccine authorized in the US, and while shareholders have tried taking the UK pharma to court, a judge has now squashed that effort. Federal Judge Paul Oetken of the US Southern District of New York approved the pharma company's motion to dismiss a class action suit. The lawsuit alleged the company made misleading statements about the clinical testing of its Covid-19 vaccine candidate AZD1222. The suit was filed over multiple issues certain shareholders raised in the pharma's clinical trial. Alleged failures included AstraZeneca giving some participants half the proper dose of a vaccine. "The Phase II/III clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the validity and importance of the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient populations," according to the amended complaint. The legal action was filed in early 2021. AstraZeneca filed a motion to dismiss, saying that the complaint did not state a claim. Oetken was not convinced that the pharma made any inaccurate statements. In his ruling, he wrote, "There is no generalized duty to disclose negative facts, per precedent in other cases; and plaintiffs have not identified any inaccurate, misleading or incomplete statement relating to AZD1222's dosing during AstraZeneca and Oxford's phase 2/3 clinical trials for AZD1222," adding that everything the plaintiffs identified was completely accurate. Beyond that, the judge noted a few other issues in the plaintiff's case for the reasons why he threw it out: A. The plaintiffs did not comply with his court's individual rules on amending its complaint, despite having the opportunity to do so; B. The plaintiffs did not suggest how they would amend the already-amended complaint to remedy the grounds for dismissal; and C. On top of those factors, "the Court concludes that amendment would be futile under the circumstances." Monday's ruling reflects what AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot told the BBC in June. Regarding its Covid-19 vaccine development, he said, "I don't think I would do anything differently from what we did." [GN] AUSSIE HOME: May Face Class Action for Unfair Mortgage Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- According to The Property Tribune, Shine Lawyers has announced it is investigating a potential class action for homeowners who were sold a policy by Aussie Home Loans that ultimately had limited or low value. Tens of thousands of homeowners were sold the Mortgage Protection Policy despite it having little to no value. The policy was described as similar in nature to life insurance - it would help cover home loan repayments in the event of the mortgage holder's illness, loss of employment, or death. Shine alleges this was unnecessary as many customers already had similar and better coverage, and there were also other policies available that were cheaper and provided better coverage. The investigation will examine whether brokers owed a duty of care to act in the best interest of their clients, whether that duty was breached, and whether the sale of the product was deceptive or misleading, or amounted to unconscionable conduct. Rebecca Jancauskas, Class Actions Practice Leader, said more often than not first homebuyers were forced to hand over an extra $1,000 or more annually to pay for such policies. "It's hard enough to get a foot on the property ladder, and if brokers are selling unnecessary insurance it makes it even harder. Buying a home is a complex and stressful process. We're investigating whether Aussie Home Loans exploited its clients by selling them a policy that was essentially worthless," said Ms. Jancauskas. As part of the investigation, Shine is looking to speak with anybody who bought a Mortgage Protection Policy from Aussie Home Loans from September 2016 onwards. An Aussie Home Loans spokesperson told The Property Tribune they offer thousands of mortgage and insurance products but do not issue insurance itself. "We are aware of media reports regarding a law firm reviewing aspects of an insurance product, offered by a third-party insurer through Aussie," the spokesperson said. "Aussie has not received any correspondence relating to these claims and therefore is unable to provide further comment." [GN] AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ BussinessWire posted that Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Azure Power Global Limited ("Azure" or the "Company") (NYSE: AZRE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired Azure securities between June 15, 2021 and August 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/azre. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) there were procedural irregularities, including deviations from safety and quality standards, at one of Azure's plants; (2) certain project data was manipulated; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's internal controls and procedures were not effective; (4) Azure had received a credible whistleblower report alleging such misconduct; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If the participants wish to review a copy of the Complaint, they can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/azre or may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If the investors suffered a loss in Azure, they have until October 31, 2022, to request that the Court appoint them as lead plaintiff. Their ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that them serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com BCE-MACH LLC: Wake Energy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCE-Mach LLC, et al. The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BCE-Mach LLC, BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00794-JD (W.D. Okla., Sept. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute. BCE-Mach is a partnership between Mach Resources LLC and Bayou City Energy Management LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L Smith, Esq. Harry S Jordan, IV, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 293-3029 Email: brady@BLSmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com BEIERSDORF & BAYER: Agrees to Settle Benzene Class Suit for $2.3-M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Georgina Caldwell posted through Global Cosmetics News that Beiersdorf and Bayer will pay some US$2.3 million to settle a class action suit brought against the manufacturers following the discovery that its Coppertone sunscreen was contaminated with benzene. As the current owner of the Coppertone brand, Beiersdorf recalled 12 lots of the line's spray sunscreen in September 2021 after the product was found to have been contaminated with benzene. A group of shoppers subsequently launched a lawsuit against the German manufacturer of Nivea and former Coppertone owner, Bayer Healthcare. Under the terms of the settlement, Beiersdorf and Bayer have not admitted any wrongdoing. Class members will receive a full refund for the covered products bought with proof of purchase or receive a rebate equal to the average retail price for up to six products without proof of purchase. [GN] BIG BEAVER: Xu Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations ---------------------------------------------------- Nancy Xu, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BIG BEAVER SS #205, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and FRANCIS ASKER a/k/a FRANK ASKER, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-12124-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages and proper compensations and to seek all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was paid by Defendants on fixed hourly wage, but also received tips from customers of the restaurant. Additionally, all of the Defendants' servers performed the same day-to-day job duties, which included interacting with customers, serving them food and beverages, and cleaning. In violation of the FLSA, the Defendants maintained an enterprise-wide policy of confiscating all tips received by servers from the customers of the restaurant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a server in the Defendants' Slippery Slider restaurants. The Defendants owns and operates several restaurants, including the Savvy Sliders restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wahl, Esq. STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 205 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2913 Phone: 248-633-8916 Email: gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com - and - Charles R. Ash, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48178 Phone: 734-234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Norwood B3 Case Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AUSTIN NORWOOD, ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-3203 (E.D. La.), Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting: a. the motion in limine to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' medical causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; Transocean, Ltd.; and Triton Asset Leasing GmbH; and b. their motion for summary judgment. The instant action is a "B3" case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. B3 cases involve "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)" -- In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *9 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) (Barbier, J.). In the course of the MDL proceedings, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, which included a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") permitting certain class members to sue the defendants for later-manifested physical conditions. The B3 plaintiffs, by contrast, either opted out of the class action settlement agreement or were excluded from its class definition. To prevail on their claims, the "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response." The Plaintiffs allege that from late May 2010 through early August 2010, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Norwood was employed in Navarre and Pensacola Beach, Florida, to "locate and 'boom' oil dispersants." As part of this employment, Norwood "removed oiled debris & tar from the water by hand" and "would also drag the oil boom behind the boat and skim oil & dispersants from the water." The Plaintiffs allege that Norwood was exposed to oil and dispersants during the course of his employment as a clean-up worker, and as a resident of Santa Rose Beach, Florida. According to them, as a result of this exposure, Norwood suffers from, among other things, difficulty breathing, recurring cough and bronchitis, blurred vision, sinus issues, nausea and vomiting, severe digestive issues, blood in his stool, numbness and tingling in his extremities, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, skin issues such as blistering and itchy skin,9 syncope/fainting, swollen intestines, "liver function off," and a tumor on his femur. Margaret Norwood, Norwood's wife, has asserted a claim for loss of consortium based on her husband's alleged medical conditions. The Plaintiffs filed the instant civil action, seeking a jury trial with respect to their claims, which include negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct; strict liability pursuant to the Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act, Fla. Stat. Section 376.011; and a derivative claim of loss of consortium. To support their claim that exposure to oil and dispersants caused Norwood's medical conditions and symptoms, the Plaintiffs provide both specific and general medical causation analyses completed by Cook. Cook is a retired Navy physician, a fellow of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and is board certified in occupational medicine, public health, and general preventative medicine. Mr. Cook's general causation report utilized a "general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be the result of exposures sustained in performing clean-up work" and to assess "the likelihood that occupational exposures that occurred during work in oil spill cleanup caused disease, contributed to the development of disease, affected the severity of disease, or exacerbated pre-existing disease that workers have associated with potential exposures. His specific causation report concludes that Mr. Norwood had exposures to multiple chemicals. The combined effect of these multiple chemical exposures is difficult to study in oxicology. Mr. Norwood has multiple complaints, each with various potential causes. Some of his complaints are contemporaneous to his exposures sustained during oil spill response and cleanup work, but others better explained by causes that are not related to these exposures. In the Defendants' Motion in Limine, with respect to general causation, the Defendants assert that Cook's general causation opinion should be excluded because it is unreliable to the extent that the opinion fails: (1) to identify a harmful dose of exposure to any particular chemical; (2) to verify the Plaintiffs' diagnoses; and (3) to follow accepted methodology for evaluating scientific literature. They also argue that Cook's failure to verify the Plaintiffs' diagnoses further renders his opinion unreliable. Judge Africk holds that concerns for the reliability of Cook's general causation report based on his failure to identify a harmful level of exposure, to verify the Plaintiffs' diagnoses, and to use acceptable methodology in evaluating the scientific literature referenced in his report render his opinions unreliable. Therefore, as he finds Cook's general causation analysis to be unreliable, the existence of a specific causation report is still insufficient to satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden of proof. Having determined that Cook's general causation report should be excluded and that Cook's specific causation report is insufficient to meet the Plaintiffs' burden of proof, Judge Africk now turns to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The issue of general causation is a necessary element of teh Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants. Cook is the Plaintiffs' sole expert on general causation. With Cook's opinion on general causation now excluded, the Plaintiffs lack expert testimony with respect to general causation. As a result, they have failed to present a genuine issue of material fact with respect to their claims that their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. For the reasons he stated, Judge Africk grants the motion in limine to exclude the causation testimony of Cook and the motion for summary judgment. He dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ptuc27z from Leagle.com. BUMBLE LANE HOLDING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bumble Lane Holding, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Lane Holding, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07670-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bumble Lane -- https://www.bumblelane.com/ -- is a spa in Baton Rouge, Louisiana offering a rejuvenating facial, invigorating body scrub, therapeutic massage or luxurious nail service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CASSADY ROOFING: Palomo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Palomo, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. CASSADY ROOFING, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22NWCV00806 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for Violation of California Labor Code as a result of the Defednant failure to pay compensation. The Defendants failed to provide employment records; failed to pay overtime and double time; failed to provide rest and meal periods; failed to pay minimum wage; failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failed to pay reporting time wages; failed to pay split shift wages; failed to pay all wages earned on time; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failed to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations and the applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Cassady Roofing, INC., from March 31, 2022 until April 22, 2022. Cassady Roofing, Inc. are procure and deliver materials for roofers, and otherwise assist roofers in deconstruction and construction of roofs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin P. Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com CIGNA CORP: Sued by Medical Societies for Underpaid Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Paige Minemyer's cover for Fierce Healthcare, the American Medical Association (AMA) has joined a class-action lawsuit against Cigna, alleging the insurer underpaid for claims filed by providers in the contracted MultiPlan network. MultiPlan is the country's largest third-party network, and Cigna contracts with it to access providers. According to the lawsuit, which was initially filed in June 2022, Cigna reimbursed for claims from providers in MultiPlan's network at its non-participating providers' rate rather than at the rate expected for a MultiPlan contract. "The insurer significantly underpaid claims, and put patients at risk of balance billing," the plaintiffs claim. "It also breached its fiduciary duties, including its duty to honor written plan terms and its duty of loyalty, because its conduct serves Cigna's own economic self-interest and elevates Cigna's interests above the interests of plan member patients," according to the lawsuit. Cigna had not returned a request for comment on the lawsuit at the time of publication. In addition to AMA, two state medical societies -- the Medical Society of New Jersey and the Washington State Medical Association -- joined the suit. In a statement, AMA President Jack Resneck Jr. said that Cigna "has allowed the insurer's economic self-interest to be prioritized ahead of their promises to physicians in the MultiPlan Network and their patients." "The AMA and other physician organizations allege that Cigna's misconduct is riddled with conflicts of interest and manipulations that routinely shortchanged payments to MultiPlan Network physicians and interfered with the patient-physician relationship by ignoring the MultiPlan contracts and making incorrect statements to patients about their liability for the unpaid portion of the billed charges, and by joining Stewart v. Cigna as a plaintiff, the AMA hopes to shed light on Cigna's misconduct and create remedies so that patients and physicians can look forward to getting what they are promised," Resneck said. [GN] DIGNITY HEALTH: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Van Bebber Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT VAN BEBBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY HEALTH d/b/a MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED, and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00264-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the motion for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of Dignity Health. The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action suit stemming from various alleged state labor law violations by Dignity Health, an acute care hospital in Merced, California. Plaintiffs Robert Van Bebber, Martha Ochoa, and Rachel Clover are former Dignity Health employees who were employed by defendant for at least some of the class period, which covers the period from July 13, 2013 to Sept. 8, 2021, the date of the class certification order. Throughout the class period, the Defendant employed a rounding policy pursuant to which all employee timeclock entries were rounded either up or down to the nearest quarter-hour. Except for one entry that demonstrated a 65-minute rounding window, no individual employee time entry was rounded by more than seven minutes either up or down. The Defendant's tardiness policy, however, is based on the actual timeclock entry and not the rounding of timeclock entries. The Defendant requires employees to start each shift on time, and has a strict policy prohibiting overtime unless the employee has previously obtained approval. The class affected by its rounding policy consists of at least 2,215 hourly non-exempt employees. The Defendant's expert, Scott Sternberg, analyzed timeclock records for a random sample of 197 class members, including the three plaintiffs, for the period between July 13, 2013 to July 31, 2020 (the start of the proposed class period to when data was collected for production to the Plaintiffs). In that sampling, he found there to be 1,299,049.50 total rounded hours and 1,302,424.83 total actual hours, resulting in a "net difference in favor of the Defendant of 3,375.33 hours," or 0.26% of the total rounded hours. The sample employees worked 143,636 shifts during the period analyzed. Expert Sternberg noted that averaging the total lost hours across the total number of shifts over that same time frame resulted in an average of 1.41 minutes lost per shift per employee due to rounding. The Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Brian Kriegler, noted that not all time on the clock is subject to rounding. Rather, the Defendant's rounding policy only impacts the times that employees clock in or out at the start and end of their shifts and for meal periods. As such, only 28 minutes of a typical work day is subject to rounding. According to the Plaintiffs, averaging the minutes lost across the minutes subject to rounding in the sample analyzed resulted in an average of 5.94 minutes lost per 28 minutes subject to rounding per shift, or a net difference of 21.2% in favor of defendant. Analyzing a random sampling of data from 199 class members, the Plaintiffs' expert noted that not all of the time lost to rounding is equal—some of the lost minutes in the Defendant's favor was time that, if counted, would have been subject to overtime or double time due to the length of the employee's shift. Dr. Krieger calculated the net difference between rounded time and actual time to be 3,760.62 hours which, when accounting for the difference in overtime and double time, equals to 6,712.76 hours of "straight time" pay (base rate of pay prior to overtime premiums). In this random sample, he found that 77.4% of employees experienced undercompensated work time due to the rounding policy resulting in fewer paid rounded hours than actual hours worked. When accounting for overtime premiums, he calculated that 80.9% of employees were underpaid with an average difference in earnings of $1,459.62 per person. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of action in their second amended complaint: (1) violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (2) unpaid wages and penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 218, 226, 510, 511, 1194, and 1998 (i.e. overtime); (3) failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding; (4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226; (6) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act (California Labor Code Section 2698-2699); (7) failure to provide rest periods; and (8) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees. On Aug. 26, 2020, the Defendant filed the pending motion seeking partial summary judgment in its favor as to the Plaintiffs' third cause of action for failure to pay all wages based upon alleged illegal rounding. On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Defendant's motion and a request for judicial notice. The Defendant filed its reply thereto and objections to the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice on Sept. 28, 2020. While the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was pending, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class on Sept. 4, 2020. After the motion was fully briefed, Judge Drozd issued an order on Sept. 8, 2021, adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In relevant part, the order certified the following class and sub-class related to the rounding claim at issue in the pending motion for partial summary judgment: a. All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility from July 13, 2013 to the date of the class certification order and who were paid pursuant to Defendant's rounding policy and practice (Rounding Class); b. All non-exempt hourly clinical employees of Defendant who worked at least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility from July 13, 2013 to the date of the class certification order and who were paid pursuant to Defendant's rounding policy and practice (Rounding Clinical Sub-Class). The matter is before the Court on Dignity Health's motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant's motion was taken under submission on the papers. The Plaintiffs filed a request for judicial notice in support of their opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. They seek judicial notice of the following: (1) the declaration binder, exhibit binder, and notice of lodging deposition excerpts filed in support of their motion for class certification; (2) a law review article written by Elizabeth C. Tippett entitled "How Employers Profit From Digital Wage Theft Under The FLSA;" (3) a law review article written by Elizabeth C. Tippett, et al. entitled "When Timekeeping Software Undermines Compliance;" (4) a copy of the 2002 Update of the DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual (Revised) Sections 47.1-47.2 ("DSLE Enforcement Manual"); and (5) a copy of the California Civil Courtroom Handbook and Desktop Reference, Section 8:37 (2018). The Defendant filed objections to the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice, arguing that the two Tippett law review articles are subject to reasonable dispute and are therefore outside the scope of judicial notice. Judge Drozd holds that the Defendant's arguments as to the Tippett articles are clearly correct and persuasive. Law review articles are not "facts for which judicial notice is proper." The Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice will be denied as to both law review articles authored by Elizabeth C. Tippet. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently laid a foundation as to the authoritative nature of the California Civil Courtroom Handbook and Desktop Reference. Therefore, Judge Drozd exercises discretion and declines to take judicial notice of the cited treatise. Of course, he considers citation to the treatise as supporting authority in analyzing the parties' arguments. The DSLE Enforcement Manual also is a "public record properly the subject of judicial notice." Therefore, Judge Drozd takes judicial notice of only the DSLE Enforcement Manual. Dignity Health seeks summary judgment in its favor on the Plaintiff's third cause of action for failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding because it maintains that its rounding policy is valid as a matter of law. It asserts that "there can be no dispute that its rounding practice is neutral on its face." The Plaintiffs do not dispute that. It also contends that its "rounding system is also neutral as applied" because, it contends, "overall compensation was minimally affected by the practice." Its final argument is that its rounding policy is neutral as applied because "the difference between rounded and unrounded timeclock entries for a sampling of proposed class members was approximately 3,375 hours in the Defendant's favor, which is a mere 0.26% of the approximately 1.3 million total hours in the sample." After reviewing the evidence presented on summary judgment by both parties, Judge Drozd concludes that the Defendant has not established that its rounding policy is neutral as applied as a matter of law. Although it is undisputed that Dignity Health's rounding policy is facially neutral, the Defendant has not shown that its policy is sufficiently similar to other rounding policies that courts have found to be neutral in application. Rather, the evidence critical to that determination is disputed. As such, the Defendant has not established that it is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' third cause of action for failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding. For all of the reasons he explained, Judge Drozd denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to now reassign the case to U.S. District Judge Ana I. deAlba and the parties are advised that all future filings in the case will bear the new case number of 1:19-cv-00264-ADA-EPG. The parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Mamie Hernandez at (559) 499-5652, or MHernandez@caed.uscourts.gov, within 14 days of service of the Order regarding the rescheduling of the Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3m7amc8a from Leagle.com. DR. SQUATCH: Fleming Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Squatch, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04842 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling and marketing practices with regards to its cosmetics described as "natural," such as a "Men's Natural Shampoo" under the Dr. Squatch brand ("Product"). Despite representation as natural, the Product contains numerous non-natural ingredients. Decyl Glucoside is not natural because it is made by chemical condensation with glucose polymers. Glycerin is recognized by federal regulations as synthetic, and is a factory-produced texturizer created by complex processing. The Product contains other representations which are misleading. Despite the front label statement of "Oat Protein, Jojoba Oil, Honey," the amount of these ingredients is less than consumers would expect. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less than approximately $14.00 for 8 FL OZ, a higher price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations and omissions. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions were false and misleading or would have paid less for it. The Plaintiff chose between Defendant's Product and products represented similarly, but which did not misrepresent their attributes and/or components. The Plaintiff paid more for the Product that she would have paid absent Defendant's false and misleading statements and omissions, and the Product was worth less, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions. Dr. Squatch, LLC manufactures, labels, and sells cosmetics described as "natural," such as a "Men's Natural Shampoo" under the Dr. Squatch brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 2nd Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAUREN SOUTER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY; EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC; and EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-1486 TWR (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants with prejudice the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against the Defendants alleging misleading representations associated with their antibacterial hand wipes, known as "Wet Ones," which she purchased multiple times during the class period. She alleges that the misleading representations violate California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL") and the California Consumer Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiff further alleges breaches of express warranty and quasi-contract. Two representations are at issue: (1) that the hand wipes kill 99.99 percent of germs (the "Efficacy Representations"); and (2) that the hand wipes are "hypoallergenic" and "gentle" (the "Skin Safety Representations"). The Plaintiff contends these representations are false and misleading and would likely deceive reasonable consumers. When buying the hand wipes, she alleges that she relied on the Efficacy and Skin Safety Representations on the product label. Had she known the truth, she claims, she would not have purchased the hand wipes or would have purchased them on different terms. The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on July 31, 2020. On Oct. 6, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint on five grounds: (1) lack of constitutional and statutory standing, (2) failure to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (3) failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test, (4) primary jurisdiction, and (5) preemption. On June 7, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the reasonable consumer test. The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on July 7, 2021. On Aug. 6, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss on the same five grounds. On Feb. 16, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend because the Plaintiff, again, did not satisfy the reasonable consumer test. The Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on March 18, 2022. On April 8, 2022, the Defendants filed the instant motion. They moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on four grounds: (1) lack of constitutional and statutory standing; (2) failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test; (3) preemption; and (4) primary jurisdiction. They also maintain that the Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief should be dismissed. As to the reasonable consumer test under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, Judge Robinson explains that the reasonable consumer test requires a probability that a "significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled." At the pleading stage, courts have dismissed cases under the reasonable consumer test only in select circumstances, particularly where the "alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply not plausible." If common sense would not lead anyone to be misled, then the claim may be disposed of at a motion to dismiss stage. Judge Robinson again finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled facts to satisfy the reasonable consumer standard as to the Defendants' Efficacy Representations. He says her Second Amended Complaint largely mirrors her First Amended Complaint -- with some additional facts relating to the efficacy of the Defendants' product, namely, when it is applied to hands and in combating diseases spread by one's hands. The Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants' Efficacy Representations are misleading and false, is two pronged: (1) Wet Ones are ineffective under real-world conditions, and (2) Wet Ones do not kill numerous common germs that are transmissible by hands. Judge Robinson holds that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead either that Wet Ones are ineffective in real world conditions, or that the Defendants' Efficacy Representations are overestimated because they are based on "optimal" laboratory conditions. He also holds that the Court did not ask the Plaintiff to provide the complex thought process of a consumer, but to provide facts to support her claim that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the Defendants' Efficacy Representations. The Plaintiff has failed to do so and has therefore failed to sufficiently to state a claim for which relief could be provided. For these reasons, the Defendants' Motion is granted and the Plaintiff's claims regarding the Defendants' Efficacy Representations for failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test are dismissed with prejudice. With respect to the Skin Safety Representations, the Plaintiff again asserts in the SAC that because Wet Ones contain skin allergens, the representation that the product is hypoallergenic is false. The Plaintiff's argument is conclusory, and she fails to allege facts which support that a reasonable consumer, after reading that the product is "hypoallergenic," would assume that Wet Ones has no potential allergens. Judge Conley holds that her allegations in the SAC fail to focus on how a reasonable consumer would interpret the "hypoallergenic" labeling as it relates to the effect of the product rather than the chemical composition of the product, i.e., whether Wet Ones are more or less likely to cause an allergic reaction, regardless of the actual composition of ingredients. Based on several definitions of Hypoallergenic, in order to find that the Defendants deceptively used the term, the Plaintiff must allege she suffered an allergic reaction after using the product or that Wet Ones has a higher likelihood of causing a reaction as compared to similar products on the market. She does not allege either. The Plaintiff therefore failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants' use of the term "hypoallergenic" is false or misleading to the reasonable consumer. Therefore, Judge Robinson grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims related to Defendants' Skin Safety Representation for failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test. The Plaintiff's claim fails as to the Efficacy Representations because the Defendants never promised that the hand wipes would kill 99.99 percent of all germs, as she suggests, or even those specifically identified in the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, no express warranty was breached. The Plaintiff's claims regarding the Skin Safety Representations also fail. The Defendants' "hypoallergenic" representation is not false or misleading; thus, no express warranty was breached. Judge Robinson grants the Defendants' Motion and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim. Finally, the Plaintiff's claim for quasi-contract also fails as to both the Efficacy and Skin Safety Representations. A quasi-contract claim typically involves a plaintiff seeking the return of a benefit that a defendant unjustly gained through "mistake, fraud, coercion, or request." In the case, no mistake, fraud, coercion, or request has been shown as to either the Defendants' Efficacy Representations or their Skin Safety Representations. Judge Robinson thus grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's quasi contract claim. Because the Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA do not pass the reasonable consumer test and this is her third iteration of her complaint, Judge Robinson grants the Defendants' Motion and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's first through third causes of action. Further, in this third iteration of her complaint, the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the Defendants breached an express warranty or committed a fraudulent act to establish a quasi-contract. Judge Robinson therefore grants the Defendant's Motion and dismisses with prejudice the remaining state law claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mck87 from Leagle.com. ELECTROMED INC: To Submit Bid to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Electromed Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2022, that the Company expects to submit in the near future a motion to settle the data breach-related class action lawsuit filed in Minnesota. On September 8, 2021, a state court putative class action lawsuit was filed in Minnesota against the Company asserting injury resulting from the previously announced data breach that impacted the Company's customer protected health information and employee personal information and seeking compensatory damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the proceeding was removed to the District of Minnesota. The Company believes the plaintiff was not injured as a result of the data privacy incident, and, as a result, the claims are without merit. Accordingly, on November 11, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the parties agreed in principal to settle the case. The parties are continuing to negotiate the settlement agreement and expect to submit a motion to settle the class action in the near future. If the parties are unable to agree to the settlement terms or, if the Court does not grant the motion for settlement, the Company will continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit; however, at this time, the Company is unable to determine the ultimate outcome or potential exposure to loss, if any. Electromed Inc. is based in Minnesota, and develops, manufactures and markets innovative airway clearance products. FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Defective Minivans ------------------------------------------------------------- Car Complaints Website Writer David A. Wood posted that a Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement has been reached for 2017-2021 Pacifica minivans equipped with 3.6-liter V6 engines and 9-speed automatic transmissions. The Chrysler minivans are allegedly at risk of losing power or stalling without warning. The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit was originally filed on December 30, 2017, and entitled, Wildin et al. v. FCA US LLC, but in October 2018 the lawsuit was retitled, Moran et al. v. FCA US LLC. The class action lawsuit alleges the Chrysler Pacifica engines stall due to a loss of engine timing and crankshaft position synchronization. The plaintiffs also allege transmission defects cause the minivans to suddenly lose power. According to the Pacifica class action lawsuit, Fiat Chrysler (FCA) issued a recall in January 2018 to repair the Pacificas. But the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit allege the recall was nothing more than a repackaged software patch that has been available since August 2017 (T23 update). Additionally, the class action asserts Pacifica engines continue to stall even after the vehicles have allegedly been fixed. Class action documents claim Chrysler knew or should have known about the Pacifica problems since at least March 2016, and dealerships allegedly either deny the problem or perform repairs that only mask the symptoms. In August 2017, FCA issued "Customer Satisfaction Notification T23 EGR Valve Function" and "TSB 08-069-07 PCM Reprogram." The repair updated the powertrain control module software because Pacifica owners complained about engine malfunction lights. In a motion to dismiss the Pacifica lawsuit, FCA argued the TSB had nothing to do with alleged stalling problems. When Chrysler recalled the Pacificas, owners were told their minivans didn't need repairs if the minivans already had the T23 software updates. The two plaintiffs argue Chrysler should stop its deception and stop selling or leasing the Pacifica minivans and give customers "all or part of the ill-gotten profits it received from the sale or lease of its Class Vehicles." In addition, the plaintiffs say FCA should, "remove, repair, and/or replace the Class Vehicles' with the suitable alternative product(s) that do not contain the defects alleged herein." Chrysler Pacifica Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Prior to the Pacifica settlement, the crankshaft position sensor was covered by a 3-year/36,000-mile warranty, but the warranty for the sensor will be extended to 5 years or 60,000 miles. However, the 5 years or 60,000 miles are from the date the Pacifica minivan was purchased or leased. This means the "extended warranty" may expire for some owners before the settlement is even approved. FCA agreed to reimburse Chrysler Pacifica customers when the TSB and recall were announced, but the settlement says minivan customers can be reimbursed for repairs to the crankshaft position sensors. However, reimbursement is only available if the customer purchased or leased a Pacifica more than five years before the effective date of the settlement and before the minivan reached 60,000 miles. According to the Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement, customers must submit proof of ownership and claim forms within 180 days of the effective date of the settlement. All future repairs must use a replacement crankshaft position sensor with part number 68079375AD or a later version. The settlement also says a Pacifica customer may file a claim to have the stalling minivan repurchased by Fiat Chrysler. Chrysler Pacifica settlement agreement mentioned that: "This Settlement provides an expedited, binding Arbitration to determine whether FCA US should repurchase or replace your Class Vehicle. Your eligibility for repurchase or replacement, however, may depend upon your state’s lemon law." According to the proposed Chrysler Pacifica class action settlement, the two plaintiffs who sued will receive $10,000 each, and their attorneys will receive $835,000. The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement final approval hearing will be February 15, 2023. Chrysler Pacifica owners with settlement questions should visit PacificaStallingSettlement.com. The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: Moran et al. v. FCA US LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC.[GN] FEDEX GROUND: Odea Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Odea, and those similarly situated persons v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 220900569 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Defendant for failure to pay all wages owed, whether minimum wages or overtime wages, for unpaid pre-shift and/or post shift security and/or bag screening in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and liquidated damages in the amount of $500 per employee, for unpaid late wages due but not paid within 30 days of the regularly scheduled payday in violation of Pennsylvania's wage payment and collection law. The Defendant required the Plaintiff and Class Members to regularly perform compensable work off-the-clock for which they did not receive any compensation. Instead of paying Plaintiff and the Class Members for all compensable hours, including their pre- and/or post-shift security and/or bag checks, Defendant routinely required Plaintiff and Class Members to be present on their premises for these checks which constituted compensable time. Even though during the statutory period applicable to their claims the Defendant regularly and consistently required Plaintiff and Class Members to undergo pre and post-shift security and bag checks, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for such time. The Defendant regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members for all compensable hours in violation of the PMWA and failed to pay the Plaintiff and Overtime Class Members for all overtime hours worked at the applicable overtime rates for each and every hour worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for FedEx as a package handler. FedEx, has been an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce, and, which regularly conducts business in the City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Breen, Esq. THE ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM LLP Rothenberg Center 1420 Walnut Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 732-7000 Email: dbreen@injurylawyer.com FIRST TEAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Lalli Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PARAMJIT LALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE-ORANGE COUNTY, a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00027-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Judge John W. Holcomb of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters Final Judgment. Pursuant to the Order Granting Motion for Service Award and Class Counsel Fees and Expenses and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement entered substantially contemporaneously with the Judgment, and in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Holcomb approves proposed settlement as reflected in the Settlement Agreement. The following Settlement Class is certified: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through preliminary approval (1) one or more of First Team's realtors called or texted, (2)(a) on their cellular telephone numbers using Vulcan7 and/or RedX, and/or (b) on their cellular or landline telephone numbers using a prerecorded voice message, (3) whose phone numbers First Team's realtors obtained from Vulcan7 and/or RedX, and (4) who are identified in the Vulcan7 call logs and/or RedX call logs that have been produced in the action. Plaintiff Paramjit Lalli is appointed as the representative of the settlement class. Lalli is awarded $5,000 as a service award for serving as class representative. The Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $143,550 and the reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $47,582.69. The payment of attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses to the Class Counsel and the service award in the Action are directed be made from the Settlement Fund, and the Released Parties as described in the Settlement Agreement will have no liability or responsibility for the payment of the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees or expenses and the service award. The Released Parties' only and total liability is the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, Settlement Class Members; the Parties and their counsel are directed to implement and consummate the Agreement according to its terms and provisions; and the Agreement is declared to be binding on, and to have preclusive effect on, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and the Releasing Parties. Judge Holcomb directed the Parties to implement and to consummate the Agreement, including taking all actions required under the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. All persons who are Settlement Class Members are bound by the Final Judgment and are enjoined from instituting, maintaining, prosecuting, or enforcing, either directly or indirectly, any claims discharged by the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the action as to the following matters: the enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement; issues relating to settlement administration; and the enforcement of this Judgment and any order relating to attorneys' fees or class representative award. Other than potential post-judgment remedies, to the extent that any party requests any other form of relief, such request is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pajebas from Leagle.com. FLORIDA: Tries to Delay Potential Class Suit for Medicaid Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Miami Team published that Florida is trying to fend off a potential class-action lawsuit alleging that the Medicaid program is denying coverage for incontinence supplies in violation of laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Attorneys for the state filed documents in federal court in Jacksonville disputing that two named plaintiffs had legal standing to pursue the case and arguing that it should not be considered a class action. The lawsuit, filed in July 2022, said the Medicaid program stopped providing incontinence supplies to plaintiffs Blanca Meza and Destiny Belanger after they turned 21, though they are incontinent and unable to care for themselves. It alleges the state is violating federal Medicaid law and laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act. But in a document filed to answer the complaint, attorneys for the state argued, in part, that the women did not have legal standing because they "have not been exposed to an unreasonable and serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization." Also, the attorneys wrote that the state Medicaid program operates under regulations approved by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Defendant (the state) has a comprehensive, effectively working plan for providing qualified individuals with necessary services to prevent unnecessary institutionalization. Alternatively, any relief the court deems necessary should be limited to narrowly address the harm before it and not unnecessarily affect the defendant's otherwise comprehensive, effectively working plan for the delivery of Medicaid services that have been reviewed and approved by CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)." the document said. The lawsuit said the state provides incontinence supplies, such as briefs, diapers, and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and for certain adults, including people in nursing homes and people in what is known as Medicaid home- and community-based services "waiver" programs. But that coverage does not apply to Meza, a Duval County resident, and Belanger, a St. Johns County resident. As an example of their disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle spasticity, neuromuscular scoliosis, and partial epilepsy." "Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and bowel incontinence. As low-income Florida residents with significant disabilities, they receive their health services through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians have prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs' incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the community." said the lawsuit, which also includes the advocacy organization Disability Rights Florida as a plaintiff. The lawsuit names defendant Simone Marstiller, the secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, which operates the massive Medicaid program. The plaintiffs also are seeking a preliminary injunction. A judge in 2010 ordered the state to provide incontinence briefs to Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21, the lawsuit said. Medicaid also provides incontinence supplies for adults in nursing facilities; adults with AIDS and a history of "AIDS-related opportunistic infection;" and adults enrolled in the state's long-term care and iBudget waiver programs, according to documents in the case. The iBudget program, for instance, serves people with developmental disabilities. But the lawsuit, filed by attorneys for the Florida Health Justice Project and Disability Rights Florida, said the waiver programs have long waiting lists, and Meza and Belanger receive care in their families’ homes. The lawsuit said Meza's family faces $188 a month in costs, while Belanger's family faces $200 a month in costs. In addition to disputing underlying arguments in the lawsuit, attorneys for the state last week also contended that the case should not move forward as a class action on behalf of a broad number of Medicaid beneficiaries. "Here, the alleged commonality of the proposed class and typicality of the named plaintiffs must fail because neither the named plaintiffs nor the proposed class suffers the same harms that depend on the resolution of a common contention," wrote by Erik Figlio and Alexandra Akre, the state's attorneys. [GN] GALLERY M. INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gallery M. Inc. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gallery M. Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07677 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gallery M -- https://www.gallerym.com/ -- is a premier fine art gallery representing international, contemporary fine art, photography,sculpture & new media.[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 GUARISCO FINE ARTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guarisco Fine Arts. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Guarisco Fine Arts, Case No. 1:22-cv-07678-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guarisco Gallery -- https://guariscogallery.com/ -- is one of the largest and leading fine art galleries worldwide.[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 HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unsafe Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clare Fonstein, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that Houston A federal lawsuit has been filed against Harris County and the Harris County Sheriff's Office by the mother of a 98-pound special needs teen beaten to death in the Harris County jail in October 2021. Fred Harris, 19, was killed by 240-pound, repeat violent offender Michael Paul Ownby, according to officials. Harris and Ownby were put in the same holding cell without appropriate oversight, according to the mother's legal complaint. The complaint, filed by his mother, Dallas Garcia, alleges Harris County and the Harris County Sheriff's Office failed and refused to accommodate Harris' disability. It also claims they failed to provide protection, safe housing and safe movement in the jail. "Harris County knowingly created an extremely dangerous jail," family and civil rights lawyer Randall Kallinen said in a news release. The Harris County Jail is operated by the Harris County Sheriff's Office. Garcia continues to suffer physical, mental and psychological damages. Harris died in the county jail weeks after detention officers and deputies filed a federal class action lawsuit in September of 2021, saying they were understaffed to the point that unhygienic measures had to be taken because they couldn't get a bathroom break. Additionally, a 2021 state inspection revealed Harris County Jail is understaffed, according to Kallinen's news release. Harris was in the jail after being arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. No one was injured in the incident. According to the plaintiff's complaint, it is unlikely Harris would have been convicted. He had never been arrested before this incident. He had spent years struggling with depression, anxiety and had threatened suicide. He had continuous incidents of running away from home. Harris graduated from Stafford High School in 2020, and is said to have been very well liked by his peers, even being elected as homecoming royalty. Dallas Garcia described her son as a sweet, outgoing boy who never met a stranger and had garnered the nickname "Fearless Fred." Ownby has been charged with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. [GN] INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Linda Moore, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, Neptune Flood Incorporated, and Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc., Case No. 22-C-14 was removed from the Wayne County Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of West Virginia on Sept. 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00385 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Indian Harbor Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony E. Nortz, Esq. Brent K. Kesner, Esq. Ernest G. Hentschel , II, Esq. KESNER & KESNER P. O. Box 2587 112 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-25329 Phone: (304) 345-5200 Fax: (304) 345-5265 Email: anortz@kesnerlaw.com bkesner@kesnerlaw.com ehentschel@kkblaw.net - and - Kenneth P. Hicks, Esq. KENNETH P. HICKS, LC 742 Fourth Avenue Huntington, WV 25701 Phone: (304) 525-3201 Fax: (304) 525-4700 Email: khicks1748@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew A. Nelson, Esq. Michael P. Markins, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1400 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 553-0129 Fax: (304) 932-0265 Email: matt.nelson@lewisbrisbois.com michael.markins@lewisbrisbois.com ISLAND PURSUIT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Pursuit, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Island Pursuit, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07667 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Island Pursuit, Inc. -- https://islandpursuit.com/ -- was founded in 1981. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of women's ready-to-wear clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com J M SMUCKER: Faces Class Suits Over Folgers Coffee and Jif Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- The JM Smucker Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2022, that the Company is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed over alleged false number of servings found in the package labels of Folgers coffee products, as well as the alleged presence of salmonella in their Jif peanut butter products. The Company said they are also defendants in a series of putative class action lawsuits that were originally filed in federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Texas, Washington, and Washington D.C., but have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs assert claims arising under various state laws for false advertising, consumer protection, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and similar statutes. Their claims are premised on allegations that the Company has misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from various canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those products. The Company is also a defendant in five putative class action lawsuits as a result of its voluntary recall of select Jif peanut butter products. The plaintiffs assert causes of action for negligence, breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and, in some of the lawsuits, violations of state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws. Their claims are premised on allegations that the Company engaged in business practices designed to mislead the public regarding the safety of Jif peanut butter for human consumption due to the alleged presence of salmonella. The Company said, "The outcome and the financial impact of these cases, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of July 31, 2022, and the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or estimable. However, if we are required to pay significant damages, our business and financial results could be adversely impacted, and sales of those products could suffer not only in these locations but elsewhere." The J. M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker, is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. Headquartered in Orrville, Ohio, the company was founded in 1897 as a maker of apple butter. J.M. Smucker currently has three major business units: consumer foods, pet foods, and coffee. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Pelvic Mesh Suits for $204M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Zipp reports through MedtechDive that Johnson & Johnson has agreed to settle two pelvic mesh cases in Australia for AU$300 million (about $203.7 million), according to the Australian firm Shine Lawyers, which represented the applicants. Shine Lawyers announced Sunday that it came to the agreement with J&J and its subsidiary Ethicon in two class action lawsuits alleging that patients suffered injuries after being implanted with pelvic mesh products. "The complications which can result from the implants include erosion of the mesh into surrounding organs, chronic pain, painful sexual intercourse, and incontinence," the firm said in the release. The agreement still needs to be approved by the Federal Court of Australia. If the court approves of the agreement, it will be the largest settlement in a product liability class action in Australia's history, according to Shine. Nine Gynecare implant products were included in the proceedings. "Ethicon empathizes with all women who experience medical complications related to pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. These are extremely complex medical conditions and Ethicon has strived to support the availability of treatment options for women with these conditions. With the Federal Court approval pending, we are pleased to reach a settlement that provides certainty and a path forward for eligible Australian patients," a J&J spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The company did not confirm the settlement amount. The deal settles two class action lawsuits in one agreement. The first lawsuit was filed in October 2012, went to court between July 2017 to February 2018, and was decided in the plaintiffs' favor in November 2019. J&J's attempts to appeal failed, with the High Court of Australia rejecting the company's request to appeal in November 2021. The second lawsuit was filed in April 2021 on behalf of patients who received implants on or after July 4, 2017, and was not allowed to be part of the first-class action suit, Shine stated. The settlement is another loss for J&J in pelvic mesh cases. In April 2022, a California appeals court ordered J&J to pay $302 million for deceptive marketing of pelvic mesh implants. The three-judge panel upheld a lower court's ruling that Ethicon omitted or minimized the risk of using the devices in its instructions for the products and marketing to doctors and patients. J&J also agreed to pay $117 million in 2019 to settle an investigation across 41 states and the District of Columbia alleging the company used deceptive marketing practices for transvaginal surgical mesh products. Injuries from mesh products have been the center of numerous lawsuits across the medical device industry. Most recently, Becton Dickinson was ordered to pay $4.8 million in damages to a Hawaiian patient who said he suffered severe injuries from hernia mesh products made by the company's subsidiary C.R. Bard. [GN] JSP LIFE AGENCY: De La Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Maria De La Paz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JSP. LIFE AGENCY INC. D/B/A JSP HOME CARE SERVICES and JOSE NICANOR RODRIGUEZ as an Individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-07620 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and The Family and Medical Leave Act, to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium and unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, liquidated damages, expenses related to tools and trade, prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and Attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA, NYLL, and FMLA by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, as well as failing to provide the Plaintiff with vacation, personal days, and sick days, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Patient Care Aide and Home Health Aide at JSP for the benefit of and at the direction by the Defendant. The Defendant JSP is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ataur Raquib, Esq. SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP 4240 Bell Blvd 405 Bayside, NY, 11361 JUMPER MAYBACH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jumper Maybach LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jumper Maybach LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07594 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jumper Maybach -- https://jumpermaybach.com/ -- offers apparel & accessories for audacious humans.[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 KANGA CARE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kanga Care, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kanga Care, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07595 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kanga Care -- https://www.kangacare.com/ -- is one of the leading manufacturers for modern style cloth diapers on the market today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com KENTUCKY BRANDED: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kentucky Branded, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kentucky Branded, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07648 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kentucky Branded -- https://kentuckybranded.com/ -- offer one of a kind KY state, Makers Mark, and KSR apparel, mugs, hats and Merchandise for men, women and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KEYSTONE DOOR: Brodeur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keystone Door & Building Supply Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mathew Todd Brodeur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keystone Door & Building Supply Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 34- 34-2022-00326387-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Keystone Door & Building -- http://www.keystonedoor.com/-- is a manufacturer and distributor of doors and building materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certify this case to proceed as a "collective action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and define the class as: "All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked"; 2. Approve the Notice and Consent to Join form; 3. Directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent to Join form to all potential collective action members via first-class U.S. Mail; 4. Directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous places in their place of business for a period of 60 days; 5. Directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective action members currently employed by Defendants; 6. Directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses and dates of employment of all potential class members within 14 days of the Court’s order so that Plaintiff may disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; and 7. Directing the putative class members shall have 60 days from the date Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which to opt-in to the action. Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RHIgIl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Posted on Bakersfield website, Globe Newswire, Inc. said that Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Corporation ("Kohl's" or the "Company") (NYSE: KSS) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired Kohl's securities between October 20, 2020, and May 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kss. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the Company's stated goals; (2) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in executing its Strategic Plan; (3) Kohl's had deficient disclosure controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance mechanisms; (4) 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; (5) all the foregoing, once revealed, were likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl's financial condition and reputation; and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If any investors wish to review a copy of the Complaint, they can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kss or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If any investors suffered a loss in Kohl's, they have until November 1, 2022, to request that the Court appoint any of the investors as the lead plaintiff. Their ability to share in any recovery doesn't require them to serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide, attorney advertising, and prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com KORENS USA: Class Settlement in Taunton FLSA Suit Wins Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LANDON TAUNTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KORENS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-844-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, grants the parties' joint motion for conditional certification, preliminary approval of collective action settlement, and distribution of notice. Mr. Taunton brings the action against Defendants Korens USA, Inc. and One Solutions, LLC, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. ("FLSA"). He alleges, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, that the Defendants did not pay all overtime bonuses earned for work performed over forty hours per week. He seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The parties now jointly move the Court to conditionally certify the proposed collective action; to preliminarily approve their executed settlement agreement, proposed notice and consent forms, and the method of distribution; and to appoint Courtney Lowery and Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as class counsel. Based on the complaint and the parties' presentation, there are five potential op-in plaintiffs, in addition to the named Plaintiff, who were welders employed at the Korens plant in the three-year period when they allegedly withheld overtime bonuses. At this stage, all members of the proposed collective action appear to be similarly situated to the named Plaintiff. Judge Marks finds, therefore, that the potential plaintiffs satisfy the "fairly lenient standard" to warrant "notice and the opportunity to 'opt-in'" at the first stage of Section 216(b) certification. Accordingly, the motion for conditional certification of a collective action is granted. The following class is conditionally certified: All hourly-paid welders who worked at the Korens plant and earned a performance bonus in connection with work performed in any week in which they worked more than forty hours between Dec. 27, 2018, and Dec. 27, 2021. To approve a proposed settlement, the Court must be satisfied that it represents "a fair and reasonable resulution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions." The settlement formula provides the Plaintiff and the potential opt-in plaintiffs with 100% of their damages, calculated from unpaid wages plus liquidated damages. The agreement itemizes the distribution to the Plaintiff and the five potential opt-in plaintiffs according to this formula. Based on the parties' presentation, the settlement amount appears to be fair and reasonable. The settlement agreement calls for creation of a common fund of $10,710.26, out of which all claims and attorney's fees and costs will be paid. Of this fund, $2,210.27 is allocated to the settlement fund, out of which each plaintiff will receive an award equal to their maximum damages. The remainder of the common fund ($8,500) is allocated for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The parties represent that attorney's fees were negotiated as an amount separate from the Plaintiffs' recovery, which was calculated prior to settlement negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, the parties agreed on a recovery of 100% of the Plaintiff's and the opt-in plaintiffs' damages. In view of these negotiations and "the compensation that the Plaintiffs will receive from the settlement after payment of attorney's fees pursuant to each settlement agreement," Judge Marks concludes that the attorney's fees and costs are fair and reasonable. The settlement agreement contemplates that the Plaintiff and the opt-in plaintiffs will release the Defendants from "known and unknown" claims that "reasonably arise out of the acts alleged in the Action, which include all wage and hour claims under the FLSA and similar state and municipal laws governing lost wages that were asserted or could have been asserted between Dec. 27, 2018 and Dec. 27, 2021." It explicitly preserves the Plaintiffs' rights to bring any other claim against the Defendants unrelated to the unpaid overtime wages. Judge Marks holds that courts have declined to preliminarily approve proposed settlements that require "releases that extend beyond FLSA claims, absent assurance that any plaintiff or opt-in plaintiff seeking advice and counsel regarding such a release, the claims they may be releasing, and their value, will receive it." This settlement, however, expressly limits the release to those claims which could have been brought for the acts that gave rise to the FLSA action. She is therefore satisfied that the release provision and all other provisions, are "fair and reasonable." Upon consideration of the motion, and for good cause, Judge Marks grants the joint motion for conditional certification, preliminary approval of collective action settlement, and distribution of notice. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yn2es46f from Leagle.com. LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed La Grande Boucherie, LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. La Grande Boucherie, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07612 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. La Grande Boucherie -- https://boucherie.nyc/ -- is a polished French restaurant in an expansive art nouveau–style space with an elegant heated atrium.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Due ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with LifeStance Health's June 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"), of the important October 11, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased LifeStance Health securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the LifeStance Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8073 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 11, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance Health's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (2) the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing LifeStance Health's operating expenses to increase substantially; (3) LifeStance Health had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted in the IPO's registration statement and LifeStance Health had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (4) as a result, LifeStance Health's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the IPO's registration statement represented. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the LifeStance Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8073 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LINCARE HOLDINGS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Janet Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the 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 Clay County, Florida. The Defendant is a Florida corporation and a "telephone solicitor."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com LISA-MARIE'S: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07583 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc. -- https://lisamariesmadeinmaine.com/ -- is a gift shop in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LOUISIANA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McZeal v. OGB, State ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Alfred McZeal; Lenora Wilson; Warren Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. State of Louisiana; Office of Group Benefits; Louisiana Office of Debt Recovery; Charlotte Hawkins; Mark E. Falcon, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-30631 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's order dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Ms. Wilson, on behalf of a putative class, sued the State of Louisiana and other defendants in federal court alleging they unlawfully attempted to collect a debt from her and other similarly situated individuals. Wilson previously worked for the State and received state health insurance. In 2015, she instructed the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits ("OGB") to deduct her health insurance premiums directly from her state retirement benefits. Due to an error, OGB never deducted the premiums. OGB did not discover the error for four years, causing Wilson's owed balance -- unbeknownst to her -- to balloon to $3,918.59. After discovering the error in 2019, OGB sent Wilson a letter disclosing the mistake and seeking collection of her total unpaid balance. OGB sent Wilson two additional letters before eventually referring the matter to the Louisiana Office of Debt Recovery ("ODR"). ODR then attempted to collect the outstanding balance from Wilson. Due to another error, ODR sent Wilson forty identical collection notices, all dated June 19, 2019, providing final notice of the outstanding premiums owed. Ms. Wilson alleges that the State, OGB, ODR, and two individual state employees, Charlotte Hawkins and Mark Falcon (collectively, "Appellees"), unlawfully harassed and attempted to extort money from her and other similarly situated individuals. She filed her complaint in federal court on behalf of a putative class, asserting a menagerie of federal and state claims. In response, the Appellees first moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending the Eleventh Amendment barred Wilson's claims. Adopting the magistrate judge's report, the district court partially granted the motion and dismissed all claims against the State, OGB, and ODR. Only two classes of claims remained: (1) federal and state law claims against the state employees in their individual capacities, and (2) federal law claims against the state employees in their official capacities for declaratory or injunctive relief. The Appellees answered the complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss the federal claims as insufficiently pleaded or legally deficient, and also recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Agreeing with the magistrate, the district court granted the Appellees' motion, dismissing Wilson's federal claims with prejudice and her state law claims without prejudice. Wilson timely appealed. On appeal, Wilson's pro se brief argues the district court erred on several grounds, namely by: (1) denying Wilson leave to amend her complaint; (2) holding the Eleventh Amendment barred her claims against OGB and ODR; (3) denying Wilson oral argument; (4) denying Wilson's motion to strike Appellees' Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (5) not ruling on class certification before dismissing the case. First, Wilson argues the district court erred by denying leave to amend her complaint in response to Appellees' Rule 12(c) motion. On appeal, she argues only that the district court should have considered other factors besides futility. The Fifth Circuit holds she is mistaken. Denying a motion to amend is not an abuse of discretion if allowing an amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Second, Wilson argues the district court erred in holding the Eleventh Amendment bars her claims against OGB and ODR. The Eleventh Amendment bars a state's citizens from filing suit against the state or its agencies in federal courts," unless the immunity has been validly waived by the state or abrogated by Congress. The Fifth Circuit says Wilson offers no coherent argument why the district court erred in finding that the Eleventh Amendment bars her suit. She does not contest that OGB and ODR are state agencies. She implies this does not matter because the agencies are "state actors" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. But it is well established that Section 1983 did not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Hence, the district court did not err. Third, Wilson argues she was entitled to oral argument before the district court ruled on the Appellees' motions. But Wilson forfeited this issue by not raising it before the district court. In any event, parties do not have the right to oral argument. Fourth, Wilson argues the district court erred in denying her motion to strike the Appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings, a ruling we review for abuse of discretion. To the extent the Fifth Circuit comprehends Wilson's argument, she appears to contend that the Appellees were "foreclosed" from bringing a Rule 12(c) motion because "they had already filed an Answer in the proceedings." This is backwards. A party may move for judgment under Rule 12(c) "after the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial." Nothing suggests that the Appellees violated this rule or that the district court otherwise abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike. Finally, Wilson argues that the district improperly dismissed her case without first ruling on class certification. Again, the Fifth Circuit holds that Wilson forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the district court. In any event, where a putative class action may be halted by motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, district courts may rule on the merits before addressing class certification. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mhzsamnv from Leagle.com. LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Interception of Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Huber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-03571 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act stemming from the Defendant's unlawful interception of Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that allowed the Defendant to watch and record the Plaintiff's and the Class members' visits to its website. The Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications with the Defendant's website, including how they interacted with the website, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. Defendant intercepted, stored, and recorded electronic communications regarding the webpages visited by Plaintiff and the Class members, as well as everything the Plaintiff and the Class members did on those pages, e.g., what they searched for, what they looked at, the information they inputted, and what they clicked on. The Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of the Plaintiff or the Class members. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' substantive legal privacy rights under the WESCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff most recently visited Defendant's website on or about August 2022. The Defendant owns and operates the following website: www.lowes.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: Ari@marcuszelman.com MEDTRONIC PLC: Trustees of Welfare Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Trustees of The Welfare and Pension Funds Of Local 464a – Pension Fund, The Trustees Of The Local 464a United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund, And The Trustees Of The New York-New Jersey Amalgamated Pension Plan For Acme Employees, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDTRONIC PLC, OMAR ISHRAK, GEOFFREY S. MARTHA, KAREN L. PARKHILL, and SEAN SALMON, Case No. 0:22-cv-02197 (D. Minn., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Medtronic common stock between June 8, 2019, and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Among its products is the MiniMed insulin pump system for the treatment of diabetes, including the MiniMed 600 series models and the MiniMed 780G model. Medtronic is currently seeking regulatory approval for the MiniMed 780G model, which uses an advanced hybrid closed loop system. The Defendants repeatedly assured investors that the MiniMed 780G model was "on track" for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and would provide the Company with the edge it needed to close a growing gap with its competitors in the diabetes market. The Defendants made these representations despite known issues with the MiniMed 600 series models. Indeed, in November 2019, the Company issued a warning that certain MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps might have damaged pump retainer rings, which could cause the system to release too much insulin, and instructed customers with damaged rings to contact the Company for replacements. On February 7, 2020, the FDA classified Medtronic's November 2019 notification as a Class I recall—the most serious type of recall. Investors began to learn the truth about the Company's MiniMed operations on December 15, 2021, when Medtronic revealed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA regarding its Northridge, California facility. The Warning Letter followed an FDA inspection relating to the Company's MiniMed 600 series recall, and focused on "the inadequacy of specific medical device quality system requirements in the areas of risk assessment, corrective and preventive action, complaint handling, device recalls, and reporting of adverse events." The Warning Letter further explained that Medtronic had known about the MiniMed quality issues for several years before the Company finally initiated the recall, and that it failed to appropriately respond to complaints and report safety issues. As a result of the Warning Letter, Medtronic lowered its guidance for its Diabetes Group, now projecting that Diabetes Group product revenues would decline in the mid-single digits range for fiscal year 2022. On this news, the price of Medtronic common stock declined $6.75 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of $111.69 per share on December 14, 2021, to close at $104.94 per share on December 15, 2021. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Medtronic's product quality control systems were inadequate; (2) Medtronic had failed to comply with numerous regulations regarding risk assessment, corrective and preventive action, complaint handling, device recalls, and reporting of adverse events; (3) these failures increased the risk of regulatory investigation and action; (4) as a result of the Company's misconduct, the FDA would delay the approval of additional Medtronic MiniMed devices, including the MiniMed 780G; (5) these delays in product approvals, as well as the Company's need to improve its quality control systems, would negatively affect the Company's financial performance and cause Medtronic to fall further behind its competitors; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. The Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages due to Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting declines in the market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was revealed, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Medtronic common stock at artificially inflated prices. Medtronic is a medical device company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Karissa J. Sauder, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Email: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com ksauder@ktmc.com MEMORIAL HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Myers Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LYNNETT MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-2956 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Class and Collective Action Settlement Approval and their unopposed Corrected Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, initiated the lawsuit by filing a collective and class action complaint with the Court on Oct. 29, 2015. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant Memorial Area Healthcare d/b/a Memorial Health System ("Marietta") engaged in employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 20 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.01, et seq. Rhe Plaintiffs requested opt-in class certification for FLSA violations under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 opt-out class certification for violations of their Ohio-law claim. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their first Amended Complaint, adding claims for unjust enrichment on behalf of the entire Rule 23 class and violations of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act (O.R.C. Section 4113.15(A)) on behalf of an Ohio subclass. The Amended pleading also added Defendants Marietta Memorial Hospital, and Selby General Hospital. The Court conditionally certified the collective action under FLSA on Aug. 17, 2016. On May 01, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint to fix a typographical error in the name of one of the Defendants. The Court subsequently certified the Rule 23 Class on Sept. 11, 2017. On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint, solely to add two individual Defendants who worked for Memorial Health System: J. Scott Cantley, the CEO, and Eric Young, the VP and CFO. And on Sept. 10, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Definition. The parties participated in a Settlement Conference before the Court on Sept. 2, 2021. Though they were unable to achieve a settlement then, they did so three weeks later. The Agreement seeks to resolve all FLSA and state-law wage claims in the suit. Under the Agreement, the parties agree to settle the case for $2.5 million, which includes deductions for attorney fees amounting to $750,000 (30% of the settlement amount), litigation expenses and costs of $174,613.87, $25,000 in administration costs, and class representative awards totaling $45,000, leaving a maximum net settlement fund of approximately $1,505,386 divided among 2,585 eligible participants. Individual allocation was based on a multi-step damages analysis. First, the Plaintiffs used the Defendant's timesheet data to determine the number of eligible shifts worked by Class and Collective members stemming from the Defendants' compensation system under the FLSA and any applicable state law. Next, based on that analysis, they sought to reimburse class members by paying them a fixed amount for each shift that they: (i) worked during their meal break; (ii) were subjected to an automatic meal deduction; and (iii) did not cancel their meal deduction. The amount per such applicable shift is $1.19. Upon making a claim, the Plaintiffs verify the applicable number of shifts and pay each claimant the per applicable shift amount. Under the Agreement, any unused or unclaimed funds will be reallocated as follows: i. If after allocating the funds in the QSF [Qualified Settlement Fund] to make payments there are funds remaining in the QSF, the Claims Administrator will pay the balance of the QSF to the Class Counsel as a full or partial payment of any attorney's fees awarded by the Court. Any remaining funds will be returned to the Defendants. ii. Within 365 days of Effective Date, the Defendants will deposit into the QSF Account the full award attorneys' fees to Class Counsel as described in Section 3.2 to the extent the Class Counsel has not already received full payment. As it stands, if the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs recover at the same average rate as the Rule 23 class members (around $681 per claimant), approximately $1.24 million of the $2.5 million will revert to the Defendant. Consistent with the Court's Amended Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Counsel mailed both the Hybrid and FLSA Notices of Settlement on May 6, 2022. The Notices provided potential Settlement Class Members information about the terms of the settlement, and informed them about the allocation of attorney fees, and explained their right to object or exclude themselves from settlement. They also provided potential members information regarding the date, time, and place of the Fairness hearing. Over the 90-day claims period, the Claims Administrator performed skip traces for alternative addresses, and re-mailed Notices of Settlement to any potential Settlement Class Member whose Notice was returned as undeliverable. Of the 209 undelivered Notices, the Claims Administrator traced 183 notices and the Post Office provided new addresses for 26. Of those Notices, the Claims Administrator re-mailed 196 and the Post Office forwarded 11. As of Aug. 23, 2022, 20 were ultimately deemed undeliverable. At the close of the claim period, 146 opted in to the FLSA Collective. Of the 2,585 eligible Rule 23 Settlement Class Members, no one requested exclusion from the Settlement (100% class inclusion). The Class Counsel have received no objections to the proposed Agreement. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Class and Collective Action Settlement Approval, the Plaintiffs' unopposed Corrected Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and the Aug. 23, 2022, Fairness hearing concerning the same. First, Judge Marbley opines that the Agreement resolves a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay fully for work performed, including proper overtime wages. Additionally, the parties have litigated the case for the better part of seven years which has included briefing on dispositive motions, class certification, and Daubert. The parties also point to the Settlement Conference mediated by the Court as additional evidence that this agreement was negotiated at arm's length and absent collusion. Second, the Settlement Notice "fairly apprised the prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement so that class members could come to their own conclusions about whether the settlement serves their interests." The Notice "explained its purpose, discussed the nature of the pending suit and proposed class and accurately summarized the settlement agreement." At the Fairness hearing, the Class Counsel averred that approximately 20 of the 2,585 eligible class members were not notified -- representing a notice rate of approximately 99.2%. Judge Marbley finds that the Notice was sufficient. Third, Judge Marbley finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, because the Agreement is not the result of fraud or collusion, the Agreement is the result of arm's-length mediation overseen initially by the Court, the Plaintiffs are aware of the risk inherent in all litigation, the Court has no reason to question the sworn statements, the reaction of potential class members supports approval, the public policy generally supports settlement of class-action lawsuits, and the distribution is fair and equitable because the Class Members will receive payouts directly related to the amount of time they worked for the Defendants and how much actual unpaid overtime or off-the-clock time they incurred. Fourth, Judge Marbley holds that each Class Member will receive an amount of compensation proportional to the number of shifts they worked and were not fully compensated, society's stake in awarding attorneys who bring these wage-violation cases supports an award of attorney fees, the Class Counsel took the case on contingency, devoting almost 4,000 hours to the matter leading up to settlement, it is a relatively complex case which was exacerbated by the structure of the Agreement, and the Lead Class Counsel has amassed vast experience in federal courts pursuing class and collective-action litigation. Judge Marbley awards 30% of the fund, for a total of $750,000, which represents a lodestar multiplier of 0.42. Fifth, Judge Marbley awards the Class Counsel's $174,613.87 request for out-of-pocket costs incurred in litigation because those costs were necessary to litigate the case. He further awards the Class Counsel's $25,000 request for reimbursement of funds associated with settlement administration. Finally, Judge Marbley approves the $45,000 to be paid equally to the three Named Plaintiffs: $15,000 each to Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther. He says the Notice to potential class members indicated this proposed award, and there were no objections. The Defendants likewise do not object to the requested award. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marbley grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval finding the settlement fair, adequate and reasonable. He awards the Plaintiffs' attorney fees amounting to $750,000, litigation expenses and costs of $174,613.87, administration costs of $25,000, and class representative awards totaling $45,000. The difference between the requested amount in attorney fees ($833,333.33) and the amount awarded ($750,000) -- $83,333.33 -- will revert to the Plaintiffs and will be paid on an applicable shift basis. Notwithstanding the order of payment set forth in the Settlement Agreement, FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class members will be paid first. Judge Marble dismisses the case and the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bkr6dnt from Leagle.com. MGH GOURMET: Galdamez Sues Over Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Yessenia L. Sarmiento Galdamez, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGH GOURMET, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29129 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 7, 2022),is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the Plaintiff with rest periods and meal periods; failure to provide the Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements; and failure to issue final paychecks timely to the Plaintiff in violation of the Labor Code. As a general rule, the Plaintiff was not permitted to take an uninterrupted 10-minute rest break in the morning and an uninterrupted 10-minute rest break in the afternoon, nor was the Plaintiff permitted to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period break for every 5 hours worked, or a second uninterrupted 30-minute meal period break for every 10 hours worked. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with itemized wage statements that properly and accurately itemized the number of hours Plaintiff worked at the effective regular pay rates and the effective overtime pay rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a packer starting in July 2012 and ending May 6, 2021. The Defendants owned and operated their businesses in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 322-2211 Fax: (310) 322-2252 MINISO GROUP: Faces Investors' Lawsuits Over Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Wong of the Marketing Interactive website wrote that Global Chinese retailer MINISO has faced class-action lawsuits over federal securities concerns filed by US investors, including Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and the Klein Law Firm. According to the official statement of The Klein, the law firm has filed a class action complaint on behalf of shareholders of MINISO Group, alleging that the company violated federal securities laws. The lawsuit is on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded MINISO securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial public offering. The filed complaint alleges that MINISO Group made materially false or misleading statements or failed to disclose that the defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger number of MINISO stores than previously stated. According to the release, the law firm also said MINISO concealed its true costs where the company did not represent its true business model; the company and its chairman engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions. Therefore, the company is at risk of breaching contracts with the People's Republic of China authorities. The statement also said the defendant's statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Meanwhile, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has also released a statement regarding the lawsuit, alleging that the IPO's registration statement of MINISO was false and misleading. It concluded that MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts with PRC authorities and would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees. Previously in July 2022, MINISO claimed that the short seller report released by Blue Orca Capital recently was misleading, after the investment firm alleged that MINISO lied about its core business model. According to MINISO's public announcement, the retailer said the company believes the report is without merit and contains misleading conclusions and interpretations regarding information relating to the company. The company's board of directors, including the audit committee, is reviewing the allegations and considering the appropriate course of action to protect the interests of all shareholders. The board has decided to form an independent committee, consisting of independent directors Xu Lili, Zhu Yonghua, and Wang Yongping, to oversee an independent investigation regarding the allegations made in the report at the recommendation of the management of the company and in order to protect the interests of all shareholders. The independent committee may retain independent professional advisors to assist with the independent investigation when appropriate. On the other hand, MINISO has dominated headlines recently as it apologized for presenting the company as a Japanese designer brand in an earlier marketing strategy. The brand said that it will complete the process of "de-japanizing" its stores and renovating of decoration by March 2023. According to the official statement on its Weibo account released on 18 August, MINISO said from 2015 to 2018, when the company was in the early stages of its globalization, it recruited Japanese designer Miyake Junya as its chief designer, which then resulted in promoting itself as a 'Japanese designer brand'. The statement added that the company took the wrong direction in brand positioning and marketing in the early stage of development. As a result, the company has been de-japanizing its stores since 2019 by removing any Japanese designer branding elements and upgrading the brand as a lifestyle gathering store. [GN] MODA GROUP: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moda Group, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Moda Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07653 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moda Group -- https://modagrp.com/ -- strives to provide clients with a white glove and five-star real estate experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MOVE INC: Ganaway Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chantele Ganaway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOVE, INC., d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 1:22-cv-04859 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Defendant for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act from 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' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and (ii) the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal Viewing Information"). This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against Move, Inc., as the owner of Realtor.com, for violating the VPPA by disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and Video Media to Facebook without the proper consent. The VPPA prohibits "video tape service providers," such as Realtor.com, from knowingly disclosing consumers' personally identifiable information, including "information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape provider," without express consent in a stand-alone consent form. The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on Realtor.com allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it tracks when digital subscribers visit or enter Realtor.com and view Video Media. Realtor.com tracks and discloses to Facebook the digital subscribers' viewed Video Media, and most notably, the digital subscribers' FID. This occurs even when the digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to share) such information. Importantly, Defendant shares the Personal Viewing Information--i.e., digital subscribers' unique FID and video content viewed--together as one data point to Facebook. Because the digital subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account, Facebook—or any other ordinary person—can use it to quickly and easily locate, access, and view digital subscribers' corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply, the pixel allows Facebook to know what Video Media one of its users viewed on Realtor.com. Thus, without telling its digital subscribers, Defendant profits handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. It does so at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their statutory rights under the VPPA. Because Realtor.com digital subscribers are not informed about this dissemination of their Personal Viewing Information-- indeed, it is automatic and invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend themselves against the highly personal ways Realtor.com has used and continues to use data it has about them to make money for itself. The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of other Realtor.com digital subscribers' statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to the Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of VPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to Realtor.com in 2010 and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. Move, Inc. is a private corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and the owner of Realtor.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com plesko@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf - and - Patrick Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams St., Ste. 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 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 Phone: 202.494.3531 Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com MUSTANG PLUMBING: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Smith, individually and for others similarly situated v. MUSTANG PLUMBING, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00893 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendant purported to pay Plaintiff a salary, but the Plaintiff was not paid a guaranteed minimum salary. The Defendant subjected the Plaintiff to improper salary deductions based on the number of hours and days actually worked. The Defendant's decision not to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff was neither reasonable nor in good faith. Rather, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for MPI as a CAD Technician from March 2020 to October 2021. MPI is a company engaged in providing plumbing installation and service throughout Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor Montgomery, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tmontgomery@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Negrete Confirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATHEW NEGRETE, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-03390-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants Negrete's Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. Negrete performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the Port of Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work on the project filed a putative class action in state court against Nabors for violations under the California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, including Negrete. Nabors removed the action to the Court, and thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. On March 30, 2018, Negrete submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Section 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). Thereafter, Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. was appointed as arbitrator. Negrete filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment Rule 18. On April 5, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Negrete's motion, ruling on the issues pertaining to Nabors' liability. On Nov. 1, 2021, the matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. On Feb. 22, 2021, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. Negrete then filed a motion to set the amount of attorney's fees and costs with the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator accepted Negrete's requested lodestar fees and awarded a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar. On May 4, 2022, she issued a Final Arbitration Award. Through the Final Award, she incorporated the Court's previous findings from the Interim Award, and awarded Negrete $68,081.61 in damages, including statutory interesting continuing after Nov. 1, 2021, and continuing at $10.06 per day on the unpaid wages and interest at the rate of 10% annum until all wages and interest thereon are paid in full, $800 in statutory penalties under California Labor Code Section 226(e), $214,436.10 in attorneys' fees, and $2,448.25 in costs. Negrete now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,329.50 in post-award attorneys' fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this confirmation action. Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors' liability and damages. Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record where the Arbitrator "recognized the applicable law and then ignored it." The alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law -- such legal errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. "The risk that arbitrators may construe the governing law imperfectly in the course of delivering a decision that attempts in good faith to interpret the relevant law, or may make errors with respect to the evidence on which they base their rulings, is a risk that every party to arbitration assumes, and such legal and factual errors lie far outside the category of conduct embraced by Section 10(a)(4)." Finding no manifest disregard of the law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson declines to vacate the Arbitration Award. He therefore grants Negrete's Petition to confirm the Arbitration Award. As the prevailing party in the action, Negrete is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the confirmation action. Thus, the only issue before the Court is whether the requested fees and costs are reasonable. Negrete seeks $10,329.50 in attorneys' fees. Judge Pregerson finds, and Nabors does not dispute, that the rates set forth by Negrete's counsel are within the range of reasonable rates for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the "experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney." Specifically, he finds that the following rates are reasonable: Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney - $700/hour; R. Chase Donahoo, Attorney - $425/hour; Sarah L. Kokonas, Attorney - $495/hour; and Kelsey Ung, Paralegal - $295/hour. With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter, Negrete's counsel has submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying declaration. Negrete's motion and Richard Donahoo's declaration estimate that counsel spent a total of 14.7 hours on tasks related to the post-award confirmation action. Of these hours, Negrete claims that 3.8 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 9.8 hours are attributable to R. Chase Donahoo, 0.4 hours are attributable to Sarah Kokonas, 0.7 hours are attributable to Kelsey Ung, and 3.0 hours are attributable to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he would spend preparing a reply and anticipated judgment. The Court has adjusted these hours for reasonableness. Specifically, it has subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of time billed by R. Chase Donahoo in connection with preparing the petition to confirm the arbitration award. It has also subtracted 1.2 hours from the amount of time billed by Richard Donahoo to reflect the reduced amount of time reasonably required to revise or supplement the moving papers. Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the following result: Richard E. Donahoo - $700 for 5.6 hours - $3,920; R. Chase Donahoo $425 for 9 hours - $3,825; Sarah Kokona $495 for 0.4 hour - $198; Kelsey Ung $295 for 0.7 hour - $206.50. The total is $8,149.50. The adjustments reflect the reasonable number of hours expended by the counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award fees. Thus, Negrete is entitled to $8,149.50 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the complaint. For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson grants Negrete's Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. on May 4, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058997, is confirmed. The Court will enter judgment in favor of Mathew Negrete and against Nabors in the amount of $68,081.61 in damages, including statutory interest continuing after November 19, 2021, and continuing at $22.97 per day on the unpaid wages and interest at the rate of 10% per annum until paid; $800 in statutory penalties under California Labor Code Section 226(e); $214,436.10 in attorneys' fees; and $2,448.25 in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator. Judge Pregerson further grants Negrete's request for post-award attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,149.50 and for costs in the amount of $402. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddsxb7c from Leagle.com. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Grice Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Shannon Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03573-GAM (E.D. Pa., Sept. 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Enterprise Systems, Inc. (NES) -- https://www.nes1.com/ -- was established in 1987 by Ernest R. Pollak, as a full-service debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Howard Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300 Roseland, NJ 07068 Fax: (203) 246-2887 Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Appeal TRO in Homaidan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellants v. HILAL K. HOMAIDAN and REEHAM YOUSSEF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellee. HILAL K. HOMAIDAN and REEHAM YOUSSEF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Adversary Proceeding Plaintiffs, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-4398(EK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal Judge Elizabeth Stong's recent decision granting a temporary restraining order against them. Appellees Hilal Homaidan and Reeham Youssef filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2008 and 2013, respectively; their debts were subsequently discharged. Following that discharge, Homaidan (and later Youssef) moved to reopen his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and commenced an adversary proceeding as a putative class action against Navient and other defendants. In the adversary proceeding -- from which the putative appeal emerges -- they seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages arising from the Appellants' alleged violations of the discharge injunctions provided by 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(2). Generally speaking, the Appellees allege that the Appellants continue to seek to collect private student-loan debts that were discharged in bankruptcy. Those private loans were properly discharged, Appellees contend, because they are not nondischargeable "qualified education loans" as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 221(d)(1) and 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8)(B). The Appellees moved for the TRO in April 2022. After briefing and argument, the Bankruptcy Court entered a TRO on July 11, 2022. The TRO, which became effective as of today, restrains Navient "from taking any acts to collect on Tuition Answer Loans held by the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint, that exceed the cost of attendance as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 221(d), and that have an outstanding balance subject to collection." The TRO will expire on Sept. 20, 2022 unless it is extended by the Bankruptcy Court for good cause or Navient consents to an extension, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Navient timely sought leave for this appeal; the Appellees oppose such leave. Navient also asked the Bankruptcy Court to stay the TRO pending appeal; Judge Stong denied that motion on September 2. The Appellees' motions for class certification, a preliminary injunction, and summary judgment remain pending before the Bankruptcy Court. The parties disagree over whether Navient's appeal comes as a matter of right or requires leave of the Court. First, Navient argues that the nationwide scope of the TRO calls its legality into substantial question. It cites decisions from other circuits for the proposition that bankruptcy courts lack authority to address out-of-district violations of their discharge injunctions. But leave to appeal is unwarranted, Judge Komitee says, because Navient cannot satisfy the third requirement: that an immediate decision in Navient's favor would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." It has not demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate, really) how the Court's review would promote a speedy resolution of the case. Next, Navient argues, without citing authority, that this third prong of Section 1292(b) -- the "materially advance" requirement -- is not mandatory. For the reasons he explained, Judge Komitee holds that it is incorrect. Navient has not persuasively explained how its appeal would satisfy this third prong, and understandably so: even if the Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's TRO, the litigation would continue, including determination of the Appellees' pending motions for class certification and summary judgment. Finally, Navient acknowledges that there is "an interpretation" of 28 U.S.C. Section 158 that would require it to request leave to appeal the TRO, but it urges an alternative interpretation that permits appeal as of right. Judge Komitee determines that Navient cites no binding authority for this interpretation. Moreover, even on its own terms, its "alternative interpretation" would allow "appeals of preliminary injunctions as a matter of right," not TROs. Even this view, however, is contested: some courts have rejected the view that preliminary injunctions are appealable as of right in the bankruptcy context. For these reasons, Navient is denied leave to appeal the TRO. The appeal is dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrn6rvbp from Leagle.com. NEVADA DINER: Urgiles Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nevada Diner Inc., et al. The case is styled as Edgar Eliseo Calle Urgiles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nevada Diner Inc., Dimitrios Kaloidis, Case No. 1:22-cv-05323 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nevada Diner -- https://www.nevadadiner.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated business since 1981 who takes pride in the high-quality service, exceptional food, and family-friendly environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC 426 Main St., # 201 Spotswood, NJ 08884 Phone: (718) 808-2224 Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northfield Holding Corp. The case is styled as Kyle Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northfield Holding Corp. doing business as: Florida Window and Door, Case No. 1:22-cv-22834-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Northfield Holding Corp. doing business as Florida Window and Door -- https://www.floridawindowanddoor.com/ -- install the highest quality impact windows and doors tested to withstand the punishment of the most severe hurricane conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com OVERBY-SEAWELL: Samsel Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overby-Seawell Company, et al. The case is styled as Mark Samsel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Overby-Seawell Company, KeyBank, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-03593-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 6, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc. -- https://lisamariesmadeinmaine.com/ -- is a gift shop in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared William Connors, Esq. Matthew Ryan Wilson Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (630) 224-6000 Email: jconnors@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com PARTS ID INC: Hasson Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PARTS iD, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Hasson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARTS iD, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01291-RJC (W.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PARTS iD, Inc. -- https://www.partsidinc.com/ -- is a technology-driven, digital commerce company focused on creating custom infrastructure and unique user experiences within niche markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com RAMON NAVA: Hernandez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Manuel De Jesus Alvarez Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ramon Nava, Individually and d/b/a Southeast Pallet Co and Southeast Pallet, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03038 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants has a business plan that includes paying non-exempt employees on a piece-rate basis and not paying the employees overtime pay, no matter how many hours per week his employees work. This payment plan thus includes not paying an overtime premium for those hours over 40 per workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows him to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a pallet maker from 2010 until August 16, 2022. Ramon Nava is the sole shareholder/owner of Southeast Pallet, Inc. and had and exercised the authority to hire and fire employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, Texas 77206 Phone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com RAPID PLASTICS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Plastics, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rapid Plastics, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07645 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rapid Plastics, Inc. -- http://rapidplastic.com/-- is a plastic fabrication company in New York City,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches Class Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minky LLP shared that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against the Catholic Dioceses of Halifax and Yarmouth on behalf of victims of sexual assault by Priests. The action was certified as a class proceeding on March 31, 2020. This class action alleges that the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Halifax and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Yarmouth are legally liable for sexual abuse committed by their Priests between April 14, 1954, and March 31, 2020. Both sides have agreed to a settlement. If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, it will provide a claims process through which eligible class members may make a claim for compensation. A settlement approval hearing will be held by the Court at the Halifax Courthouse on November 14, 2022. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class, and whether to approve the Settlement Agreement. Compensation to Class Members is not yet available. If the Court approves the settlement, class members can then make a claim for compensation. [GN] For further information: https://kmlaw.ca/cases/catholic-priest-sexual-abuse-class-action/ 1-833-630-1785 catholicabuseclassaction@kmlaw.ca. SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH: Williams Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Francis Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Kenna Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saint Francis Health System, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00390-GKF-CDL (N.D. Okla., Sept. 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Saint Francis Health System -- https://www.saintfrancis.com/ -- is an integrated health system in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with an emphasis on a complete continuum of care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hugh Michael Robert, Esq. SHERWOOD, MCCORMICK & ROBERT 15 W. 6th St., Ste. 2800 Tulsa, OK 74119 Phone: (918) 592-1144 Fax: (918) 576-6907 Email: hugh@smr-law.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County of San Francisco, et al. case is styled as Joshua Simon, David Barber, Diana Block, Josue Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City and County of San Francisco, Paul Miyamoto, in his official capacity as San Francisco Sheriff, Case No. CGC22601686 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County of San Francisco, is a commercial and cultural center in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shilpi Agarwal, Esq. ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111-4805 Email: sagarwal@aclunc.org SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 11 disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Sema4 Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SMFR; SMFRW) securities between March 14, 2022 and August 15, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until November 7, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The Sema4 class action lawsuit -- captioned Helo v. Sema4 Holdings Corp., No. 22-cv-01131 (D. Conn.) -- charges Sema4 and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Sema4 class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sema4-holdings-corp-class-action-lawsuit-smfr.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Sema4 is a health company that uses artificial intelligence to enable personalized medicine. The Sema4 class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) there was a significant risk that Sema4 would reverse a material amount of previously recognized revenue that it could not recoup from third-party payors; (ii) Sema4 was experiencing declining selling prices for its reproductive health segment; and (iii) thus, Sema4's financial results would be adversely affected. On August 15, 2022, Sema4 announced changes to its research and development leadership team, including that Sema4's founder, defendant Eric Schadt, was stepping down from his roles as President and Chief Research & Development Officer. Sema4 also disclosed that it was eliminating approximately 13% of its workforce as part of a series of restructuring and corporate realignments. During the related conference call, Sema4 further revealed that it had "reversed $30.1 million of revenue this quarter related to prior periods," in connection with negotiations with "one of [Sema4's] larger commercial payors regarding the potential recoupment of payments for Sema4 carrier screening services rendered from 2018 to early 2022." On this news, Sema4's stock price fell by more than 33%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Sema4 securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sema4 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Sema4 class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Sema4 class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (800) 449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] SILVER AND PEWTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver and Pewter Gifts, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Silver and Pewter Gifts, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07643 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Silver and Pewter Gifts -- https://www.silverandpewtergifts.com/ -- offers personalized and engraved silver gifts of sterling and pewter for weddings, baby showers and other special occasions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SMELLY PROOF: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smelly Proof, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Smelly Proof, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07647 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smelly Proof -- https://smellyproof.com/ -- offers brand storage bags and are the leader in food storage bags, blocking odors from escaping.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cheryl Sauer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc., Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2211712 was removed from the CA Superior Court, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01584 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SolarEdge -- https://www.solaredge.com/ -- is an Israeli company that develops and sells solar inverters for photovoltaic arrays, energy generation monitoring software, battery energy storage products, as well as other related products and services to residential, commercial and industrial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defednants are represented by: Matthew D Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: mpowers@omm.com STAUNTON AREA: Faces Class Action Suit for Alleged BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Madison Record Writer Andy Nghiem relayed that a class action lawsuit alleges the employee fingerprint reader system used by Staunton Area Ambulance Service violates the employees' privacy under state law. Plaintiff Gage Blevins filed a class action lawsuit in the Madison County Circuit Court against Staunton Area Ambulance Service, citing negligence and carelessness in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant. During his employment, Blevins was allegedly required to use a fingerprint reader system to clock in and out of work. The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting biometric data including fingerprints, companies must inform employees in writing that biometric data will be collected and stored. It also states that employees must be informed in writing of the specific purpose of why the biometric data is being collected, how long it will be stored, and companies must receive a written release from the employee for the collection of biometric data. The plaintiff alleges the defendant invades the privacy of its employees by collecting and storing their fingerprints without informed consent. According to Blevins, the defendant has been requiring employees to use a fingerprint reader to clock in and out of work for years. He claims the company never received a release from him allowing them to collect his fingerprints, and he never authorized the company to collect his fingerprints for this use. Blevins is seeking monetary damages for himself and everyone in his class action lawsuit, plus court costs, attorney fees and any other relief the court deems proper. He is also requesting the court to issue an order requiring the defendant to cease the collection of biometric data without informed written consent. The plaintiff is represented by the attorneys of Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway, & Wise, LLP in St. Louis. Madison County Circuit Court case number 2022LA001050 [GN] STITCH FIX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- PRNewswire provided NBC to publish that The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. The lawsuit is on behalf of purchasers of Stitch Fix Class A common stock between December 8, 2020, and March 8, 2022, inclusive. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 25, 2022 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about the recoverable losses in SFIX: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-loss-submission-form?id=31577&from=4 Stitch Fix, Inc. NEWS - SFIX NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, Stitch Fix made numerous false and misleading statements to investors concerning the synergy between the Company's Fix and Freestyle programs, and repeatedly denied claims that the Freestyle program could cannibalize the Company's legacy Fix business. Specifically, Stitch Fix repeatedly assured investors that the Company's Freestyle business was "an additive experience and complementary" to the Fix business, that "the combination of those two things will allow us to address many more types of clients, and that "we see solid growth in both sides of the business." In truth, Stitch Fix concealed that these programs were not complementary or additive. Stitch Fix knew that the Freestyle program would be much preferred to the Company's original Fix model and that the Freestyle program would inevitably cannibalize the Company's legacy Fix business. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If any shareholders have suffered a loss in Stitch Fix that they have until October 25, 2022 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Their ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that they serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If shareholders purchased Stitch Fix securities during the relevant period, they may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the SFIX lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-loss-submission-form?id=31577&from=4. ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance, and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus, attorney advertising and prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. 535 Fifth Avenue 4th Floor New York City, NY 10017 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit for Race-Based Hiring Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Sibarium of The Washington Free Beacon covered the news that the largest public university in the United States is reserving faculty positions based on race and making six-figure bonuses available exclusively to minorities, programs that are now the subject of a class action lawsuit. As part of a new initiative to attract "faculty of color," Texas A&M University set aside $2 million in July to be spent on bonuses for "hires from underrepresented minority groups," according to a memo from the university's office of diversity. The max bonus is $100,000, and eligible minority groups are defined by the university to include "African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians." Another program, at the university's Mays Business School, reserves certain slots on the faculty for the same minority groups, emails between Texas A&M professors show. These explosive revelations form the basis for a class action complaint by the conservative nonprofit America First Legal. The plaintiff, a University of Texas at Austin finance professor named Richard Lowery, argues that the hiring programs violate three different civil rights laws: A. the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits race discrimination in contracting; B. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination at federally funded universities; and C. the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which bars public universities from using racial preferences in nearly all situations. "University administrators think they can flout these federal statutes with impunity because no one ever sues them over their discriminatory faculty-hiring practices and the Department of Education looks the other way," the lawsuit reads. Lowery is asking a Texas district court to put an end to Texas A&M's programs and appoint a court monitor to make sure that the diversity office "does not aid or abet violations of the nation's civil rights laws." Such violations are increasing de rigueur in both academia and corporate America. A faculty hiring plan at George Mason University, announced in April 2021, drew criticism from law professors over its apparent use of racial quotas, which are illegal under federal law. Google, Pfizer, Microsoft, and IBM have capped or outright excluded white and Asian applicants from prestigious fellowships, while Amazon offers "Black, Latins, and Native American entrepreneurs" a $10,000 stipend to launch their own delivery startups -- a program that, like Texas A&M's initiatives, is now the subject of a lawsuit. Many of these programs seek to ensure that an institution's racial balance reflects the demographics of the population. George Mason said its hiring initiative would close "gaps" between the racial composition of its students and the racial composition of its professors. Texas A&M likewise touted its race-based bonus scheme as a way to achieve demographic "parity" with the state of Texas. Though public universities can use race as a "plus factor" in admissions, it's not clear whether they can do so in faculty hiring. Even if they can, the lawsuit argues, Supreme Court precedent would still forbid the sort of outright quotas used by Texas A&M. "These discriminatory, illegal, and anti-meritocratic practices have been egged on by woke ideologues who populate the so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at public and private universities throughout the United States, the existence of these offices is subverting meritocracy and encouraging wholesale violations of civil-rights laws throughout our nation's university system." Lowery's lawsuit says. Laylan Copelin, the vice chancellor of marketing and communications for Texas A&M, said the university system would "review the lawsuit and take appropriate action as warranted." With more than 73,000 enrolled students, Texas A&M is the largest university in the country. [GN] TMP INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMP International, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TMP International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07669 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TMP International -- https://tmpintl.com/ -- are suppliers of quality branded promotional products and merchandise across North-America and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tractor Supply Company, et al. The case is styled as Shelby L. Higley, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tractor Supply Company, Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00326421-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Tractor Supply Co. -- https://www.tractorsupply.com/ -- is the source for farm supplies, pet and animal feed and supplies, clothing, tools, fencing, and so much more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com TRI CITY TRANSPORT: Heichel Sues Over Failure to Pay Full Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Heichel, Rudy Castro, Justin Garmendia, Joshua Holgate and Randi Pitts, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tri City Transport, LLC, SWWOOP, LLC, and Michael Butler, Case No. 2:22-cv-01513-SMM (D. Ariz., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Defendants for failure to pay full and final wages due upon termination of their employment, and for failure to pay sufficient minimum wages under Arizona state law in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs' work followed the usual path of employer-employee relationships; the Defendants treated them as independent contractors only for tax purposes and for the Defendants' convenience. The Plaintiffs regularly or occasionally worked over forty hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendants. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs or other Drivers 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. In some weeks, the Plaintiffs worked so many hours that their constructive hourly rate fell below both the federal and state statutory minimum. The Defendants made no reasonable efforts to ascertain and comply with applicable law. The Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the Plaintiffs violated the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs all wages due when the Plaintiffs' employments were terminated, nor within 7 days thereafter, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Drivers within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Tri City Transport, LLC ("TCT"), is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com TWITTER INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise, acquired Twitter securities between August 3, 2020 and August 23, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until November 14, 2022, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions investors may take at this time? If any of them suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, they can contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, a phone number is requested. To join the action, they can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/twitter-twtr-class-action-security. And there is no cost or obligation to you. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and prospects. Specifically: -- Twitter knew about security concerns on their platform; -- Twitter actively worked to hide the security concerns from the board, the investing public, and regulators; -- contrary to representations in SEC filings, Twitter did not take steps to improve security; -- Twitter's active refusal to address security issues increased the risk of loss of public goodwill; and -- as a result, Defendants' statements about Twitter's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Twitter class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Twitter class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process, please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws, and attorney advertising, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 Investor Relations jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Due ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) between August 3, 2020, and August 23, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Twitter investors under federal securities laws. To join the Twitter class action, investors can go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8303 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and prospects. Specifically that: (1) Twitter knew about security concerns on their platform; (2) Twitter actively worked to hide the security concerns from the board, the investing public, and regulators; (3) contrary to representations in SEC filings, Twitter did not take steps to improve security; (4) Twitter's active refusal to address security issues increased the risk of loss of public goodwill; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about Twitter's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If the investors wish to join the litigation, they can go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8303 or to discuss their rights or interests regarding this class action, and contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for a number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, attorney advertising and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] U.S. MERCHANTS: Pauli Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kilisi Pauli, individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. U.S. MERCHANTS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29468 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 9, 2022), is brought to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Defendants acted pursuant to their policies and practices of not paying the Plaintiff all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly compensate the Plaintiff for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the Plaintiff to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. U.S. MERCHANTS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., conducts business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 UNITED MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Norwood FDCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICE NORWOOD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED MEDICAL RECOVERY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-134-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, grants in part and denies in part UMR's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. Ms. Norwood filed a class action complaint on Oct. 19, 2021, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against UMR and "John Does 1-25." The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") based on a Dec. 15, 2020, collection letter UMR sent to Norwood. After receiving an extension to respond to the complaint, UMR filed an answer on Dec. 28, 2021. Five weeks later, on Feb. 1, 2022, UMR filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56, asserting that (1) Norwood lacks Article III standing and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim. Ms. Norwood "allegedly incurred" medical debts with Greenwood Leflore Hospital at some point prior to Dec. 15, 2020. Greenwood Leflore Hospital subsequently assigned or retained UMR to collect the debts. On Dec. 15, 2020, UMR sent a collection letter to Norwood. The subject line of the letter states "RE: Greenwood Leflore Hospital VS Patrice Norwood." The letter is signed by "Rebecca A. Keith Attorney-at-Law." UMR, however, is not a law firm. The letter does not "provide a statement that upon request, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor." Norwood "was not aware of her proper rights regarding validation and believed the false threats" related to litigation. As a result, she "expended time, and effort in determining the proper course of action" and "would have pursued a different course of action were it not for UMR's statutory violations." UMR has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment based on arguments that Norwood lacks standing to bring the claims and the collection letter in question did not violate the applicable statutes. UMR argues Norwood lacks Article III standing because she has made no factual allegation that she actually relied to her detriment on anything in the letter at issue. Norwood responds that she has several different bases for establishing standing. She says the violations are substantive violations, and her failure to act on the letter is a direct result of her confusion regarding the competing payment demands under Mississippi law and her validation rights under the FDCPA. This resulted not only in her relinquishing her validation rights but also incurring additional fees and costs she would not have otherwise been subject to. UMR replies that Norwood fails to distinguish any of the cases it cited in support of its motion. And, relying on TransUnion LLC v. Ramierz, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), it argues that "if a plaintiff fails to demonstrate any harm, the case is properly dismissed." Judge Brown concludes Norwood has failed to establish standing to bring her claims. First, Norwood's argument that UMR's violation of the FDCPA "represents a violation of her substantive right to be free of abusive and deceptive debt collection practices, thus conferring Article III standing without the need to show additional harm," is foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's interpretation that TransUnion "requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation" such that an alleged FDCPA violation is insufficient to constitute an injury in fact. Next, Norwood's reliance on Salermo v. Hughes Watters & Askanase LLP, 516 F.Supp.3d 696, 709 (S.D. Tex. 2021), does not advance her position. Quoting Salermo, Norwood argues that "consternation and fear" she experienced in response to "unrelenting litigation threats" amount to emotional distress sufficient to amount to an injury-in-fact. However, unlike in Salermo where the plaintiff alleged she was "upset and frightened because she thought something imminent would happen, perhaps a lawsuit would be filed against her," Norwood's complaint does not allege she suffered from emotional distress but rather she "was confused and misled" by the letter. Such is insufficient to confer standing for her FDCPA claim. With respect to Norwood's argument that "the competing payment demands and validation rights in the Letter resulted in her not paying the debt, which now subjects her to the imminent risk of additional attorneys' fees and costs," Judge Brown finds that Norwood's complaint does not contain any allegations that she has been subjected to such as a result of the letter. Finally, Norwood's "time and effort spent in deciphering the Letter" do not amount to an injury in fact in the absence of a "common-law analog to the time-based injury she claims to have suffered." Because Norwood fails to carry her burden of showing standing to bring her claims, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In response to UMR's motion, Norwood also asks the Court to "grant her request for leave to amend as it would be particularly fruitful in the context of her standing arguments. UMR argues that "a motion for leave to amend a complaint cannot be raised in the body of a response and no motion to amend, supporting memorandum or proposed amended complaint has been filed in violation of Local Uniform Rule 7(b)(2). Judge Robinson agrees that Norwood's request to amend in her response is procedurally improper under the Local Rules. However, 28 U.S.C. Section 1653 provides that "defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts" and the Fifth Circuit has held that this statute "should be liberally construed." Because it is not clear that Norwood cannot amend her complaint to cure the jurisdictional allegations identified and because the parties did not have the benefit of the Fifth Circuit's guidance in Perez at the time of briefing, Norwood will be allowed a period of time to seek leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, Judge Robinson grants in part and denies in part UMR's "Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment." She grants it to the extent it seeks dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She denies without prejudice in all other respects. Within 14 days of the Order, Norwood may seek leave to amend to address the jurisdictional deficiencies in her complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycy9xthk from Leagle.com. UNITED STAFFING: Cannot Contact Class Members in Magtoles Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY GRACE MAGTOLES, AIRA C. TAN, ANA MYRENE ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ANA MERVINE ESPINOSA, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STAFFING REGISTRY, INC. d/b/a UNITED HOME CARE; BENJAMIN H. SANTOS, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1850(KAM)(PK)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting the class counsel's motion, by order to show cause, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d), for an order: (1) prohibiting the Defendants and their attorneys, agents, and representatives from communicating with the class members regarding the action and the claims asserted without prior court approval; (2) directing the Defendants to provide the class counsel with the names and email addresses of all individuals who received the Defendants' Aug. 30, 2022 email; and (3) authorizing the class counsel to send a curative notice to the class members. On May 25, 2022, the Court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 of all Filipino nurses who were employed by the Defendants at any time since April 5, 2011 pursuant to an employment contract containing a liquidated damages provision, non-compete clause, immigration notification provision, and a prevailing wage requirement. It also appointed John J.P. Howley, Esq. and Leandro B. Lachica, Esq. as co-lead class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). On June 9, 2022, the class counsel submitted a proposed notice to class members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The Court ordered the Defendants to respond, and the Defendants submitted an alternative proposed class notice on June 17, 2022. The class counsel consented to the version of the class notice proposed by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court approved the Defendants' version of the class notice on June 27, 2022. The deadline to opt out of the class was 45 days from the date of mailing, or Sept. 3, 2022. Without seeking Court approval, on Aug. 30, 2022, less than a week before the opt-out deadline, the Defendants sent an email to the class members encouraging them to opt out of the class. The email, which was signed by the "United Staffing Registry, Inc. Family," was sent from the address "info@unitedstaffingregistry.com" and copied Ferdinand Pascual, United Staffing's human resources manager. The subject of the email was "Response to Howley's Letter," i.e., a response to the court-approved class notice proposed by the Defendants' counsel. The Defendants' email acknowledged nurses' receipt of "a letter from the law office of John Howley, who filed a case against our company." After noting that the class notice summarized the Plaintiffs' claims in this action, the first paragraph of email continued: "The Class Action Notice also states that United Staffing denies and opposes the allegations mentioned, and that United Staffing has defenses." The first paragraph of the email concluded: "In fact, United Staffing filed counterclaims against the nurses for preterminating their contracts." The second paragraph of the Defendants' email acknowledged class members' right to decide whether to remain in the class. Following this acknowledgement, however, the Defendants added that by opting into the class, "you may be asked to give testimony and information about your work for United Staffing, so that your testimony or information will help the Court decide whether you are actually owed any money." Their email also reminded class members of the requisite procedures for opting out and offered to "reimburse" class members for the cost of mailing the opt-out form. The email concluded with a list of seven "possible short responses" to the class counsel for class members to opt out. After receiving the Defendants' email, a member of the class left a message for the class counsel stating that "she cannot participate in the lawsuit because she has health issues and is worried about the burden of being a party to a lawsuit." Based on the evidence cited, on Sept. 2, 2022, the class counsel moved for an order, inter alia, (1) temporarily restraining Defendants from communicating with the class members concerning this lawsuit or the claims asserted therein, and (2) directing the Defendants to respond to any inquiries from class members concerning the lawsuit by advising them to contact the class counsel pending a decision on the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court, finding that the class counsel had shown good and sufficient reasons, granted a temporary restraining order as requested and sua sponte extended the deadline to opt out of the class from Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept. 20, 2022. In addition, it ordered the Defendants to appear and show cause on Sept. 6, 2022 why an order should not be entered: prohibiting the Defendants and their attorneys, employees, agents, and representatives from communicating with class members regarding the action without prior court approval; authorizing the class counsel to send a curative notice to the class members; and directing the Defendants to provide the names and email addresses of all individuals that received the unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022 email. In their response to the court's order to show cause, the Defendants acknowledged that they caused the Aug. 30, 2022 email to be sent to the class members. They oppose the relief requested by the Plaintiffs, however, arguing that the Aug. 30, 2022 email was "not misleading, not inaccurate, and not coercive." After reviewing the record discussed, Judge Matsumoto finds clear evidence that the Defendants' unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022 email was misleading, coercive, and otherwise interfered with the proper administration of the class action. Moreover, she finds that the Plaintiff class members will be irreparably harmed if they are pressured to opt out of the class and forego their rights based on the Defendants' email. Accordingly, as requested by the class counsel, Judge Matsumoto will enter an order: (1) prohibiting the Defendants and their attorneys, employees, agents, and representatives from communicating with the class members regarding the action without prior court approval (however, class members may communicate with each other about the case); (2) requiring the Defendants to provide the class counsel with a list of the names and email addresses of all individuals who received the Aug. 30, 2022 email no later than 12:00 p.m. on Sept. 7, 2022; and (3) authorizing the class counsel to send a curative notice to the class members, including to advise the class members of the extension of the opt-out deadline from Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept. 20, 2022. First, Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants' unauthorized email is misleading because it is "factually or legally incomplete" in several respects. Second, their unauthorized email includes misleading and coercive statements about the burdens of remaining in the class. Third, their unauthorized email includes several statements that "lack objectivity and neutrality" and thus, could coerce or mislead class members into opting out. Finally, "the majority of courts recognize that an attorney-client relationship with class counsel arises at the time the class is certified, at least for the limited purpose of aiding prospective class members in deciding whether or not to join in the class action." In sum, Judge Matsumoto concludes that the Defendants' unauthorized email was sent in the "inherently coercive" context of an ongoing employment relationship between the Defendants and the class members. Their email included several misleading statements regarding the merits of the claims and defenses in the action, as well as implicit threats and misleading statements regarding the burdens of remaining a class member. Viewed in its proper context, Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants' email constituted an improper, coercive, and misleading attempt to encourage class members to opt out. Under similar circumstances, courts have not hesitated to grant the relief requested by class counsel. For the reasons she set forth, Judge Matsumoto grants the class counsel's motion. She orders as follows: (1) The Defendants and their attorneys, employees, agents, and representatives will not communicate with class members regarding this action without the prior approval of the court or class counsel. Nothing in the Order will be construed to prevent the class members from communicating with one another. (2) By Sept. 7, 2022 at 12:00 p.m., the Defendants will provide to the class counsel a list of the names and email addresses of all individuals who received the Aug. 30, 2022 email. (3) The class counsel will send a curative notice to all individuals who received the Defendants' unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022 email. The curative notice will include language stating that the Court extended the opt-out deadline from Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept. 20, 2022. The class counsel will confer with the defense counsel regarding any other changes to the curative notice proposed by the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j33dmvzw from Leagle.com. VISIBLE CHANGES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visible Changes, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Visible Changes, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07750 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Visible Changes -- https://visiblechanges.com/ -- is a beauty care & hair salon that offers high quality services from well-trained stylists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com VITALANT: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Labor, FCRA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The San Mateo employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Vitalant alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. The lawsuit against Vitalant is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 22-CIV-03291. To read a copy of the Complaint, please click here. According to the lawsuit filed, Vitalant failed to fully relieve Plaintiff for her legally required thirty (30) minute meals breaks. Employees were also allegedly required, from time to time, to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided the legally required ten (10) minute rest periods. The California Supreme Court defines off-duty rest periods as the time during which an employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control. The Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. Sction 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), provides individuals with a number of rights. Specifically, pertaining to employment-related background checks, the FCRA provides that a prospective employee must give valid consent to the background check. The FCRA requires a signed authorization and disclosure from the applicant, sometimes referred to as a "consent" form. Plaintiff completed the background check and authorization form, despite the authorization form being invalid under the requirements of the FCRA. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Vitalant, call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California employment attorney today. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] WALMART INC: Luthe Files Suit Over Customers' Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher published in Top Class Actions that Walmart's practice of collecting, storing, and using customers' biometric information without obtaining their informed written consent violates Illinois law, according to a recent class action lawsuit. Plaintiff James Luthe alleges that Walmart stores in Illinois have cameras and advanced video surveillance systems that surreptitiously collect customers' facial scans, allegedly using Clearview AI software to match customers' facial scans against billions of facial scans in Clearview’s facial recognition database. Additionaly, the Walmart class action lawsuit says that the giant retailer store does not inform them about the specific purpose and length of time for which this data will be collected, stored, and used. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was enacted to protect residents' biometric information, which includes unique identifiers like fingerprints and facial scans. Unlike Social Security numbers or other data that can be changed if compromised, biometric information is unique to an individual. If a person's biometric information is compromised, they have no recourse and are at an increased risk of identity theft, the Illinois legislature determined. BIPA requires private entities to inform people in writing that their biometric information is being collected or stored and the purpose and length of time for which it will be stored or used. The entities must also publish publicly available retention schedules and guidelines indicating when it will permanently destroy the biometric data. BIPA also prohibits companies from selling, leasing, or otherwise profiting from others' biometric data. The Walmart class action lawsuit alleges the retailer violates this provision of BIPA by sending customers' facial data through the Clearview Biometric Database without their knowledge or consent. Luthe filed the Walmart class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other Illinois residents whose biometric data was collected, stored, disseminated, and/or used by Walmart without their consent. This new Walmart class action lawsuit is just one of many to pile up against the retail giant in 2022. Walmart currently faces several recalls and class action lawsuits involving allegations of false advertising, misleading representations, and failing to properly monitor its money transfer service. Luthe is represented by Gary M. Klinger and Blake Hunter Yagman of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Joseph P. Guglielmo of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. The Walmart class action lawsuit is James Luthe v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02104, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. [GN] WALMART INC: Luthe Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII ------------------------------------------------------- James Luthe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02104-NJR (S.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought arising out of the Defendant's collection, storage, and use of the Plaintiff's and the Class's biometric identifiers and biometric information (referred to collectively as "Biometric Data") without obtaining informed written consent or providing consumers with data retention and destruction policies. In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of the Biometric Information Privacy Act or BIPA, the Defendant is and has been actively collecting, storing, and using--without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data retention policies--the Biometric Data of thousands of Illinois residents who have entered Walmart's stores. Walmart's stores in Illinois are outfitted with cameras and advanced video surveillance systems that--unbeknownst to customers--surreptitiously collect, possess, or otherwise obtain Biometric Data. Walmart does not notify customers of this fact prior to store entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to collecting its customers' Biometric Data. Further, Walmart does not provide a publicly available policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying this Biometric Data. In addition, Walmart uses software provided by Clearview AI, Inc. to match facial scans taken in its Illinois stores with billions of facial scans maintained within Clearview's massive facial recognition database (the "Biometric Database"). Walmart does not notify customers of this fact prior to store entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to disseminating or disclosing its customers' Biometric Data through Clearview's Biometric Database. BIPA confers on Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois residents a right to know about the inherent risks of Biometric Data storage, collection, and use, and a right to know how long such risks will persist. The Defendant failed to comply with its duties under Illinois law. Walmart did and does not adequately disclose its Biometric Data collection practices to its customers, never obtained written consent from any of its customers regarding its Biometric Data practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies to any of its customers. Moreover, Walmart invaded the Plaintiff's and the Class's privacy through the unauthorized collection, retention, and use of the Plaintiff's Biometric Data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an Illinois resident and has entered Walmart's stores on numerous occasions in the past three years. Walmart is a major brick-and-mortar retailer with thousands of stores across the U.S. and numerous stores within the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 212-594-5300 Email: byagman@milberg.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave., 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com WEALTHSTREAM ADVISORS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wealthstream Advisors, Inc. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wealthstream Advisors, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07634 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wealthstream Advisors -- https://www.wealthstreamadvisors.com/ -- is an independent boutique wealth management firm built on meaningful relationships with a select group of clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com WINTEROWD FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winterowd Fine Art, L.L.C. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Winterowd Fine Art, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-07679-RA (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Winterowd Fine Art -- https://fineartsantafe.com/ -- is a well-established contemporary gallery located on historic Canyon Rd. in Santa Fe, New Mexico with Art Inspired by Nature.[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 WISCONSIN: Sued for Lack of Legal Defense for Low Income Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Badger Herald Writer, Celia Hiorns, posted that eight named plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Tony Evers and Wisconsin's Public Defender Board on Aug. 23, 2022 over a lack of legal representation for low-income defendants in criminal cases. The plaintiffs have been waiting in custody for extended periods of time because they cannot afford private attorneys but have yet to be assigned a public defender. Four litigation groups, including the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed the suit, asking the state to immediately appoint legal counsel to those in need or dismiss the criminal charges against them. The lawsuit cites the statewide backlog of 35,000 criminal cases as a reason for prompt action. With such a large number of pending cases, defendants who should be presumed innocent under Fifth Amendment due process protections could spend months or longer in custody. Delays in criminal trials are often the result of public defender shortages and the issue stems from multiple causes, all of which are complicating factors in the right to receive legal representation. Adam Plotkin is the legislative liaison at the Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office. He said the shortage comes down to two main factors: workload and compensation. Plotkin said pay is very low compared to the amount of work publicly appointed attorneys are expected to complete. Over the past five to 10 years, this imbalance has increased as the practice of law has changed and technologies such as video evidence have emerged. Private attorneys are able to curate a manageable workload for themselves. But with four out of five criminal defendants unable to afford counsel, manageable workloads are a luxury for the backlogged public defender system. The issue of insufficient pay has been partially addressed in the past. In March 2021, Gov. Evers signed a bill that allows for merit-based pay increases for public defenders in the state. Intended to incentivize experienced attorneys to stay in the public sector, the bipartisan measure was a hopeful effort to resolve the shortage. But the crisis has persisted despite salary increases. Attorneys continue to gravitate toward the private sector for other benefits, such as health insurance and childcare plans. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the crisis. Shutdowns delayed court processes, which overloaded many employees to the point of resignation. Because criminal cases in particular require more time and resources, the public defender system cannot keep up with the demands amid nationwide labor shortages. Evidently, this backlog creates significant challenges in granting due process rights to criminal defendants who can't afford a private attorney. But like other aspects of the criminal justice system, these conditions do not impact all Wisconsinites equally. "There are significant racial disparities in the criminal and legal system, and so we see that reflected in our clientele, where a disproportionate number of people of color who are charged with crimes qualify for a public defender," Plotkin said. Compounded instances of inequity in the justice system make the impacts even more pervasive for low-income defendants. Plotkin cited cash bail as another example of how socioeconomic status plays a role in one's experience as a criminal defendant. Though on paper, bail gives criminally charged defendants an opportunity to be released from detention, many people without the financial means to post bail have no choice but to remain in custody. Plotkin said this is a major flaw within the criminal justice system because the presumption of innocence is not applied equally across all socioeconomic backgrounds. "A big fallacy of cash bail is it somehow protects public safety, but under the cash bail system, if I'm charged with the same crime as you are, but you have [financial] means and I don't, what makes you less risky than me?" Plotkin said. A similar principle holds true in the public defense sector, as indigent defendants may have to wait months before standing trial. Criminal defendants who have the means to hire private counsel immediately undergo a much prompter definition of Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights. Ultimately, while policies may not explicitly enforce discrimination, prejudice against low-income people persists, which fundamentally influences their experiences as they move through the criminal justice system. The inequity of public defense brings to light a larger flaw of law enforcement: the justice system lacks the capacity to address the issues it creates. In other words, the state is handing out criminal charges faster than it can resolve them, and the due process rights of low-income defendants are suffering as a result. The class action lawsuit is not intended to figure out how to repair this broken system, according to WACDL attorney Hank Schultz. Instead, the plaintiffs in the suit want to place the responsibility on the government to balance the criminal charges they issue with their ability to resolve them. In fact, the lawsuit on its own represents a technical solution to a structural problem. WACDL attorney John Birdsall emphasized the responsibility of the government to solve the crisis. "This lawsuit hopefully is a wake-up call to build a system that actually operates and actually functions fairly for everybody involved," Birdsall said in an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio. The state must consider its course of action if the plaintiffs win the class action lawsuit. They would need to derive the resources to appoint legal counsel in the long-term future or handle the consequences of dropping criminal charges -- potentially leaving the victims of crimes without justice. Sufficient appointment of counsel would require coordinated initiatives on the parts of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders and other government entities. Many of the current efforts led by the Public Defender's Office work to bolster support around the attorneys in the midst of the shortage. This comes in the form of paralegal and temporary staff assistance to reduce the workload placed on public defenders. The Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office will submit its budget request for the next biennium on Sept. 15. Plotkin said this will be a considerable request intended to address recruitment and retention issues, increase pay, hire support staff and otherwise mitigate the crisis. "[These measures] are all geared toward that singular effort of making sure we have enough resources to appoint counsel to every person who qualifies, and if approved, the new budget could bring Wisconsin's public defense system the support it needs to better serve low-income defendants," Plotkin said. Clearly, the State Public Defender's Office is acutely aware of the issue and uses the resources it has to implement meaningful change. But ultimately, being granted the support they need to resolve the public defender crisis requires integrated efforts across many government sectors. Understanding the backlog as an impact of income-based prejudice is critical for addressing the issue at its root. Of course, more basic resources are required to support an essential -- though grossly overworked -- a group of public servants. Entirely solving the public defender crisis, however, also demands a nationwide reckoning of the socioeconomic disparities inherent in a deeply flawed justice system.[GN] WP OPERATIONS: Clements' Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MITCHELL CLEMENTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WP OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1051-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated, putative Plaintiffs, Clements claims that WP violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws. The parties have stipulated to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and have jointly moved for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Rule 23 subclasses for settlement purposes: 1. Railcar Operator Subclass: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2017, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the extent such a separate title designation is made in Company records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. 2. Production Employee Subclass: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2017 and continuing through the present in the State of Wisconsin in any position other than the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the extent such a separate title designation is made in Company records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. The parties have also stipulated to the following FLSA collectives for settlement purposes: 1. Railcar Operator Collective: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2016, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. 2. Production Employee Collective: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2016, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in any position other than the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. WP asserts that there are 254 Production Employees and 53 Railcar Operators who comprise the settlement. It will pay a gross settlement amount of $112,005, which will include any attorney fees and costs. Of that amount, each subclass and collective would receive no more than: $7,652 for the Railcar Subclass, $10,408.50 for the Production Subclass, $2,709 for the Railcar Collective, and $6,235.50 for the Production Collective. Any member of the Rule 23 class who does not exclude himself will be entitled to a portion of the settlement fund. Members of the FLSA collectives will only be entitled to a portion of the fund if they file an Opt-In Consent Form. Finally, all remaining funds from excluded individuals or uncashed checks will revert to WP. In addition to the class relief, the Defendants agree to pay class counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses up to $80,000. Judge Conley notes that the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation -- determine whether a class may be established. He finds that (i) the putative class consists of at least 254 production employees and 53 railcar operators; (ii) the putative class members share the common questions of fact and related questions of law; (iii) each class member's claim -- including Clements' claim -- arises from the Defendant's timekeeping practices and alleged undercompensation; (iv) Clements is adequate to represent the proposed class because he has the same interest as the other class members to be fairly compensated for his hours worked subject to the same caveats addressed immediately above as to the third prerequisite; and (v) the Plaintiff's counsel Walcheske & Luzi, LLC has been appointed the class counsel in several other similar actions, suggesting that it is able both to litigate and settle successfully the case at hand. Since all the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are met, Judge Conley turns to the superiority and predominance requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). Under Rule 23(b)(3) in particular, certification requires the class have "questions of law or fact common to class members that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The final requirement is that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Judge Conley opines that the common issues of fact and law associated with the claims predominate over any individual issues. He also opines that with individual damages of less than $50, separate litigation is not likely to be worthwhile or economical for individual class members. Since the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are readily satisfied, class certification will be granted, and Mitchell Clements and Walcheske & Luzi, LLC will be preliminarily appointed as the class representative and the class counsel, respectively. The parties jointly propose a Railcar Operator collective and a Production Employee collective. They agree that the Plaintiff made the modest factual showing for conditional certification of a FLSA class, as shown by the previous analysis. Given the Plaintiff's similarity to the potential class members and the parties agreement that the Plaintiff has some chance of successfully showing that he and other members of the proposed class were injured by WP's alleged failure to pay workers for pre- and post-shift hours worked, Judge Conley will conditionally certify the proposed FLSA collective. With respect to preliminary settlement approval, Judge Conley is concerned that the railcar employees will recover a substantially higher percentage of their wages than the production employees without explanation, especially since Mitchell Clements, the sole proposed class representative, is not a member of the production employee subclass. This creates at least an impression that railcar employees were favored over production employees. To the extent the Court approves this proposed settlement preliminarily, the parties should be prepared to explain this difference. While this factor weighs somewhat against approval, Judge Conley still finds that preliminary factors overall suggest that the parties' proposal is fair, reasonable and adequate. He will approve the preliminary class action settlement and authorize the mailing of notice. Judge Conley next addresses the validity of the named Plaintiff's incentive award and the counsel's request for attorneys' fees. The settlement provides Clements with a $5,000 incentive award. As to attorneys' fees, the parties have proposed that the class counsel be awarded $80,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and suggest this is far less than the Class Counsel's fees and costs to date. Judge Conley is skeptical that an $80,000 fee is justified, despite the hours the Plaintiff's counsel allegedly put into the case. In fairness, the parties suggest that "because this matter does not involve the payment of attorneys' fees and costs as a percentage of a common settlement fund, the Court does not need to apply common fund principles in order to approve the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs." However, it seems prudent to look at the attorneys' recovery relative to the class as test for self-dealing. Despite significant concerns, Judge Concley will nevertheless allow the parties to issue notice to the class of the proposed settlement subject to further scrutiny of the class counsel's application for attorneys' fees, including submission of the counsel's actual hourly billing records and rates. Finally, Judge Conley will authorize the class counsel to send notice to members of the class. The proposed notice provides class members with information regarding the nature and claims of the action, a definition of the classes and collective, class members' option to appear through counsel, and the availability and process for exclusion or objection. Furthermore, the notice details the option for class members to be excluded and the effect on members of a class judgment. Still, Judge Conley notes the following modifications on pages 4 and 5 of the proposed notice that the class counsel should make before sending it out: 1. Under Payments to Participants on page 4, two additional sentences should read that: However, generally speaking, Railcar Subclass members are expected to collect about 100% of their past-due wages while Production Subclass members are expected to collect about 50% of their past-due wages. Similarly, the breakdown for the Railcar and Production Collectives will be about 68% and 38% of past-due wages, respectively. 2. Under If You Object on page 5, the notice should simply require class members to send objections to the court and include the court's contact information. Class members should not be required to send the objection to counsel; instead, the court will docket any objections it receives for both sides' information. In light of the foregoing, Judge Conley denies as moot the Plaintiff's motions to certify the class under rule 23 and the Defendant's motion to file an amended answer. He grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement. Judge Conley certifies the following Rule 23 classes for settlement purposes: 1. Railcar Operator Subclass: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2017, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the extent such a separate title designation is made in Company records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. 2. Production Employee Subclass: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2017 and continuing through the present in the State of Wisconsin in any position other than the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the extent such a separate title designation is made in Company records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. Judge Conley certifies the following FLSA collectives for settlement purposes: 1. Railcar Operator Collective: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2016, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. 2. Production Employee Collective: All individuals who were hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2016, and continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in any position other than the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked. The case is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of discovery and sending notice to the putative plaintiffs as defined. Clements is appointed as the class representative and Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as the class counsel. The proposed notice attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement is approved and the class counsel is authorized to distribute it as provided in the parties' submissions subject to adoption of the modifications specifically set forth in the Opinion. Judge Conley approves the following settlement procedure and timeline: a. no later than Oct. 7, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin mailing the notice to class members consistent with the opinion above; b. the class members will have until 45 days after mailing of notice to submit a request to be excluded or any objections; c. no later than Nov. 28, 2022, the class counsel will file a petition for attorneys' fees and costs; d. no later than Dec. 5, 2022, the class counsel will provide the list of excluded class members to the Defendant's counsel; and e. a motion for final approval and any briefing in support, as well as any objection to the class counsel's fee petition are due Dec. 12, 2022. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 20, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39c5b2e4 from Leagle.com. ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------- Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01287-WSS (W.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Zillow for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.zillow.com in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors. Zillow procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on Zillow'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 Zillow 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 ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Zillow's request. After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Zillow and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.zillow.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Zillow for analysis. Zillow's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Zillow website for the entire duration of their website interaction, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited www.zillow.com on her computer while in Pennsylvania. Zillow operates the website www.zillow.com. Zillow is the "leading online residential real estate" marketplace in the United States for consumers, connecting them to the information and real estate professionals they need to buy, sell, or rent a home.[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 Phone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com kelly@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com elizabeth@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com ZINNIA FOLK ARTS: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zinnia Folk Arts, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zinnia Folk Arts, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07654 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zinnia Folk Arts -- https://zinniafolkarts.com/ -- are a small top-quality Mexican folk art shop in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***