/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221031.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 31, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 211 Headlines ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Safeway Denies Allegations in Stewart Suit ALLIANCE FIBER: Judgments in Bushansky & Khaki Class Suits Affirmed BANK OF AMERICA: Court Partially Consolidates Yip & Hamilton Suits BED BATH: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori's Bid for Exclusion of Affidavits Denied BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment Bid in Omori Suit Partly OK'd CALIFORNIA: Parties in Fowler v. Lanier to File Joint Status Report COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 20 ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action FCA US: Court Denies Flynn's Bid to Reconsider Taxation of Costs FORGEROCK INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims FRAME LA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sep. 15, 2023 GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass. GENPACT LLC: Bland Files Suit Over Management Trainees' Unpaid OT GEORGIA: Deaf Individuals Win Class Certification GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Lynn Scott Suit H. N. FERNANDEZ: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HANESBRANDS INC: Toussaint Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina HAZEL AND OLIVE: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HCA-IT&S FIELD: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages HEXAGON MANUFACTURING: Frohlich Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Suit HYATT CORP: Cert. Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to End May 19 ILONA INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Toogood Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky JEFFREY L. RICHARDSON: Liberty Files Suit in D. South Carolina JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Due Dec. 15 JUSTANSWER LLC: Quamina Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal KARYN MANNIX: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KATE ASPEN INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KAY WATERPROOFING: Does Not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Cabrera Says KIA AMERICA: Burnett Files Suit in N.D. Indiana KINGLINE NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Hobbs Suit KNOWBE4 INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims KOLD TRANS: Stipulation to Continue Class Certification OK'd KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Gibbons Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Krantz Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. LAWRENCE FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Issues Agreed Protective Order in Klein Suit LOONEY LABORATORIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOVEBUG NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAINSTAGE MGMT: Wins in Part Summary Judgment Bid in Layton Suit MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Scheduling Order Entered in Hinton Suit MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order MDL 2670: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in Seafood Antitrust Suit MEDICAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss SASB Class Complaint MESA PACKING: Cy Pres Recipient Given $66K in Miguel-Sanchez Suit MINISO GROUP: Ashraf's Securities Suit in Preliminary Stage MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Suit Remanded to Caldwell Super. Court MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Sues Over False Labeling MSK RESTAURANT: Borja Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Buelvas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Nov. 10 Deadline to File Class Status Sought NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. NYC VELO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NYGG ASIA: Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Due Feb. 3 ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims ORVIS CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Farris Class Suit PARADISE EXTERIORS: Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadlines Sought PEARL RIVER MART: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Filed PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Skrtich Sues Over ERISA Violation PIZZA PALS INC: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PLAID ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Approves $25K Service Award for Montera PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond, et al., File Class Cert. Bid RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines RESEARCH ENHANCED: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RITE AID: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit RUDYS MUSIC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York S & P MINI: Faces Paulino Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages S1 SECURITY GROUP: Mendiburt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SCENARIO COCKRAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Nese Class Suit SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Wins Bid to Certify Class SEISEIDOU AMERICA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SESEN BIO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK SHAKESTIR LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHAY HUGHES: Bartole Suit Tossed for Not Having Actionable Claims SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Bashir Seeks Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages SNAP INC: Deadline for Residents to Submit Claims Set Nov. 5 SONUS NETWORKS: Misleads Investors on Sales Outlook, Suit Claims SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Dismissal of Luo Suit Due Nov. 30 SPRUCE HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATE FARM GENERAL: Pearce Files Suit in S.D. Florida SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bids to Dismiss Hickman Suit Granted in Part SUGAR BEETS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York T-MOBILE USA: Taveras Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments TA OPERATING: Peters Suit Removed to C.D. California TARGET CORP: Bayne's Breach of Implied Warranty Claim Proceeds TATTOOED CHEF: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action TDI LLC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Proceedings Stayed Pending Transfer Ruling TOV FURNITURE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TP-LINK USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRUE VALUE COMPANY: Calvert Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania TWIN Z COMPANY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York U.S. BANK: Court Trims Claims in Pacific Life's Amended Class Suit UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Court Enters Final Judgment in D'Amario Suit USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Epstein Class Suit With Prejudice VERVE LABS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York VINNIE'S AUTO COLLISION: Guerrero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime VIVIANO CONSULTING: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dismissal of Riley's Song-Beverly Claims Affirmed VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Punitive Damages Calculations in Riley Vacated WALGREEN PHARMACY: Gamarro Suit Removed to C.D. California XELERO TECHNOLOGY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YUMMERS PET SUPPLY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Safeway Denies Allegations in Stewart Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 10, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2022, that Safeway Inc. denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending itself in the putative class action complaint entitled Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc. pending in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon. The complaint alleges that Safeway engaged in unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free" and similar promotions. Safeway denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending itself in the matter. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded and headquartered in Boise, Idaho. The company merged with Safeway Inc. in January 2015. ALLIANCE FIBER: Judgments in Bushansky & Khaki Class Suits Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ALLIANCE FIBER OPTIC PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Intervenor and Appellant. BAHMAN KHAKI, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ALLIANCE FIBER OPTIC PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Intervenor and Appellant, Case Nos. H047100, H047101 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth District affirms the trial court's judgments entered in two shareholder class actions arising from Corning Inc.'s acquisition of Alliance. Intervenor Isaacson appeals from judgments entered in two shareholder class actions arising from Corning's acquisition of Alliance. Isaacson contends the trial court erroneously granted final approval of the negotiated settlement: in Isaacson's view, the court underestimated the materiality of insider trading by Alliance's CEO -- discovered only after the acquisition -- both to Alliance shareholders deciding whether to accept Corning's tender offer and to the strength of shareholder claims released through the settlement. Alliance was a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. It designed, manufactured and marketed a broad range of high-performance fiber optic components and integrated modules for the optical network equipment market. By at least mid-2015, Alliance's earnings were trending downward. By at least late 2014, Alliance had attracted interest as an acquisition target. Four parties -- Corning, Party A, Party B, and Party C -- indicated interest in acquiring Alliance in late 2014 and early 2015. By May 2015, Parties A, B, and C had indicated to Alliance that they were no longer interested. It was on April 7, 2016, that Corning and Alliance publicly announced that they had entered into a merger agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, on that day Corning commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding Alliance shares at a price of $18.50 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $305 million. On April 21, 2016, Corning filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO and a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 relating to the tender offer. On April 22, 2016, Stephen Bushansky filed a shareholder class action challenging the merger in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Three additional shareholder class actions followed, the last of which was filed by Bahman Khaki on May 6, 2016. In Bushansky's operative First Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 29, 2016, Bushansky alleged that Alliance's directors negotiated an inadequate tender offer price. Specifically, he alleged that Alliance's directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, independence, candor, fair dealing, and good faith because, with a financial interest in securing a merger, they failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that stockholders received fair value for their shares and failed to provide shareholders with sufficient information about the tender offer to make an informed decision about the proposed transaction. He alleged that Corning and a subsidiary aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. Khaki pled substantially similar claims. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs initiated settlement negotiations by sending a demand letter to the Defendants in an effort to resolve the actions through a settlement. On May 26, 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, which they memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The deadline for Alliance's shareholders to decide whether to tender their shares was June 3, 2016. Corning's tender offer was successful. On June 6, 2016, Alliance became an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Corning. After completing confirmatory discovery, the parties executed a settlement agreement in August 2017. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Alliance: (1) had made supplemental disclosures; (2) had waived a standstill provision in an agreement with a specific third party; and (3) would be responsible for the costs of disseminating notice to the settlement class for the purposes of securing settlement. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and the putative settlement class would be subject to a release of claims. Further, they agreed to cap their anticipated request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses at $2 million. The Defendants retained the right to oppose the fee request. The trial court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on Jan. 29, 2019. First, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs had provided an analysis sufficient to "support the conclusion that the standstill waiver provided some value to shareholders." Second, it preliminarily concluded that disclosure of the standstill provided "material value" to shareholders. Third, although the release was not "narrow," the Plaintiffs conducted an adequate investigation to enable them to determine that "shareholders do not likely possess any meritorious claims connected to the transaction, other than those addressed by the settlement. After notice was given to the class, the Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the proposed settlement and for an award of $500,000 in fees and expenses. Isaacson filed an objection to the final approval motion. He argued that the settlement provided no substantial benefit to the class: (1) the standstill waiver was, "at best, a minor benefit;" and (2) because the standstill provision was waived, disclosure of the standstill provision provided no additional benefit to stockholders. Further, he asserted that the Plaintiffs did not conduct an adequate investigation, such that they did not secure adequate assurance that the broad release would not extend to unintended, and valuable, claims. Bushansky, Khaki, and the Defendants replied to Isaacson's objection. Nevertheless, on the eve of the final approval hearing, Khaki withdrew his support for the settlement. On the same day, Isaacson filed a motion to intervene to preserve his appellate rights. Following the final approval hearing, the court entered a written order granting the final approval motion on May 2, 2019. The trial court awarded Bushansky $238,916.50 of his requested $500,000 in fees, with $1,000 of the reduced amount to be paid to Bushansky as an incentive award. On May 2, 2019, the court entered judgment in both the Bushansky and Khaki actions pursuant to its order finally approving the settlement. On June 14, 2019, the court granted Isaacson's motion to intervene "for the sole purpose of preserving Isaacson's standing to appeal." Isaacson timely appealed in both the Bushansky and Khaki actions. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals affirms. It holds that the trial court concluded that the value produced by the settlement, though limited, was sufficient to support the settlement because the consideration constituted a fair exchange for the release of claims in all of the circumstances. Isaacson has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in making that determination. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ft92x6j from Leagle.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Court Partially Consolidates Yip & Hamilton Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, TIFFANY YIP, et al., Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. A.H. Hamilton, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-01254-ART-EJY, 2:22-cv-00374-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Anne R. Traum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants the Defendant's Motion to Consolidate the collective action with Hamilton v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:22-cv-00374-RFB-EJY, a class action. The Plaintiffs filed the case on July 1, 2021. On Dec. 22, 2021, the case was consolidated with another collective action, Vance, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:21-cv-02149-RFB-BNW, pursuant to a stipulation by the plaintiffs in both cases and Bank of America. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 21, 2022, with the additional parties which now total 224 individuals. According to the FAC, Bank of America was contracted to be the exclusive provider of the Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation's benefit programs, including unemployment insurance, disability insurance, paid family leave, pandemic unemployment assistance, and pandemic emergency unemployment compensation benefits (collectively "DETR benefits"). Notably, Bank of America allegedly promised that debit cardholders would receive Bank of America's "Zero-Liability coverage" for cases of fraud. Bank of America allegedly issued debit cards for DETR benefits which utilized only the magnetic stripe technology. The Plaintiffs allege that the magnetic stripe technology failed to adequately respond to fraud claims. The FAC describes the harms experienced by each of the 224 individual plaintiffs, including home evictions due to inability to pay rent for lack of access to their DETR benefits. The FAC includes 12 causes of action: (1) violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"); (2) Due Process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (3) Due Process claims under the Nevada Due Process Clause; (4) violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) negligence and negligence per se; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied contract; (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (9) breach of fiduciary duty; (10) breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries; (11) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as third-party beneficiaries; and (12) unjust enrichment and money had and received. Plaintiff A.M. Hamilton filed his putative class action complaint on March 1, 2022. The Hamilton Complaint begins by describing Bank of America's contract with DETR and how the Covid-19 pandemic placed a massive strain on the unemployment system. It then sets forth allegations concerning Bank of America's policies and actions after Bank of America ceased its role administering DETR benefits in June 2021. Mr. Hamilton describes how he applied for unemployment in 2020, received a debit card from Bank of America, and "had no problem with the program" before he accepted a job offer and destroyed his debit card. He then allegedly received a Form 1099 from DETR showing that he had been paid $3,000 by DETR in January of 2022. Bank of America failed to notify Hamilton of the payment despite having his contact information. After Hamilton was unable to access to his Bank of America account, he filed a fraud claim with DETR, but never heard back from DETR or Bank of America and cannot access his account. The Hamilton Complaint sets forth two proposed classes: the Zero Liability Class and the Remainder Funds Class. The Zero Liability Class is defined as "All Nevada unemployment insurance debit card account customers of Bank of America who suffered a loss based upon an unauthorized transaction." The Remainder Funds Class is defined as "All Nevada unemployment insurance debit card account customers of Bank of America who had funds remaining in their account as of the date of filing of the Class Action Complaint." The Hamilton Complaint brings four claims: (1) breach of contract for the Zero Liability Class; (2) breach of contract for the Remainder Funds Class; (3) unjust enrichment and money had and received for both classes; and (4) violations of the EFTA for the Zero Liability Class. On April 11, 2022, Bank of America filed a Motion to Consolidate for pretrial purposes in both this case and Hamilton. The Plaintiffs in both this case and Hamilton oppose consolidation and proposed the alternative of staying this case until the issue of class certification is decided in Hamilton. The parties in both cases have stipulated that Bank of America's anticipated motion or motions to dismiss are due 30 days after this Court decides the instant Motion to Consolidate. Judge Traum concludes that there is significant overlap in law and fact between the claims in this case and in Hamilton. Although consolidation of an individual action with a class action will not automatically be denied on that basis, in the instant matter, she finds that this is a factor that weighs against full consolidation. There is efficiency gained by preserving the separate character of this case for those who do wish to opt out of Hamilton. Judge Traum finds that pretrial consolidation is warranted for the purposes of the overlapping claims, namely: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment and money had and received; and (3) violations of the EFTA. In its anticipated motions to dismiss, Bank of America may address the overlapping claims jointly. Bank of America must clearly identify which arguments are directed at which claim. Discovery on the overlapping claims will occur jointly. In view of the foregoing, this case is partially consolidated with Hamilton for pretrial purposes as described. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwdzj5ch from Leagle.com. BED BATH: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBBY), and Sema4 Holdings Corp. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBBY) Class Period: March 25, 2022 - August 18, 2022 On March 6, 2022, through his investment firm RC Ventures LLC, Ryan Cohen, the billionaire co-founder of Chewy Inc. who also serves as chairman of GameStop Corp., sent a letter to Bed Bath & Beyond's board which announced that he owned a 9.8% stake in Bed Bath & Beyond and in which he criticized the Company's management. On this news Bed Bath & Beyond stock to closed 34% higher on March 7, 2022 compared to its close on March 4, 2022, the previous trading day, on extremely heavy trading volume. On March 25, 2022, Bed Bath & Beyond added three new directors appointed by Ryan Cohen's investment firm, RC Ventures LLC. On August 15, 2022, Ryan Cohen, through his investment firm RC Ventures LLC, announced in an SEC filing purchases of over one million January 2023 call options with exercise prices at $60, $75, and $80-significantly higher than Bed Bath & Beyond shares were trading. On this news, Bed Bath & Beyond stock closed 29% higher on August 16, 2022 compared to its close on August 15, 2022, on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on August 18, 2022, Ryan Cohen, through his investment firm RC Ventures LLC, announced that he would sell his entire stake in Bed Bath & Beyond. Also on August 18, 2022, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Bed Bath & Beyond Taps Kirkland & Ellis for Help Addressing Debt Load" which revealed the Company hired a law firm for help with its debt. On this news, Bed Bath & Beyond shares fell $4.53 per share, or 19%, to close at $18.55 per share on August 18, 2022, on extremely heavy trading volume. Bed Bath & Beyond shares continued to drop on August 19, 2022, falling $7.52 per share, or 40%, from its August 18, 2022 close, to close at $11.03 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. On August 19, 2022, Bed Bath & Beyond stock plunged to a new low of $9.68, dropping another 52.6% from the previous day. Bed Bath & Beyond's stock price continued to decline over the next two trading days, falling an additional 16.23% to close at $9.24 per share on August 22, 2022, and falling another 4.98% to close at $8.78 on August 23, 2022, dropping over 70% from August 17's high price of $30 per share in five trading days after Defendants dumped their shares. Insiders profited at least $110 million from their Insider sales from August 16 to August 17, 2022. For more information on the Bed Bath & Beyond class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BBBY About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori's Bid for Exclusion of Affidavits Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for exclusion or for additional discovery. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Brandeis to recover tuition and fees collected from students for the Spring, 2020 semester. Brandeis moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' remaining claims on April 1, 2022, to which the Plaintiffs submitted their opposition on May 4, 2022. That same day, the Plaintiffs submitted this pending motion seeking exclusion of certain affidavits or, in the alternative, additional discovery. Brandeis opposed the motion shortly thereafter. The Plaintiffs first move, under Fed R. Civ. P. 37, to exclude the affidavits of eight individuals submitted by Brandeis in support of its motion for summary judgment. They aver that exclusion is appropriate because Brandeis failed to disclose the eight affiants properly. The Plaintiffs admit that four of the challenged affiants -- Dorothy Hodgson, Lynne Rosansky, Samuel Solomon and Lois Stanley -- were disclosed in the Defendant's Responses to their First Set of Interrogatories in November 2021. As a result, they knew of those four individuals and that they were members of the Brandeis COVID-19 Task Force. Thus, there was no deficiency in their disclosure and no prejudice to the Plaintiffs from Brandeis submitting their affidavits in support of its motion for summary judgment. Brandeis has agreed to withdraw two of the remaining affidavits that had been included with its motion for summary judgment. The individuals who supplied those affidavits, Haley Rosenfeld and Brian Koslowski, attested to limited facts, none of which was dispositive to the motion for summary judgment. The final affidavits to which the Plaintiffs object are those filed on behalf of Matthew Sheehy and Susan Lichtman. The disclosure of those affiants on April 1, 2022, one day after the end of fact discovery, is not justified. It is also, however, harmless. Brandeis points out that the Plaintiffs did not notice depositions of anyone disclosed in its initial disclosures or interrogatory responses prior to the close of fact discovery. In addition, the testimony provided by Sheehy and Lichtman is of relatively minor import and could, in any event, be replaced by testimony from witnesses who were timely disclosed. In these circumstances, the severe exclusionary penalty of Rule 37(c)(1) is unwarranted. As an alternative to exclusion of the challenged affidavits, the Plaintiffs seek additional discovery, including further e-discovery and depositions, under Rule 56(d). Judge Gorton finds that additional facts related to the limited testimony of Sheehy and Lichtman would not pose a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the motion for summary judgment. The vague invocation of potential facts related to the expectations of administrators and students, or to fee information, does not constitute a plausible basis to conclude that specified, material facts probably exist. Even if they did exist, those are precisely the kind of facts that the Plaintiffs could have discovered through timely and diligent attention to obtaining discovery before Brandeis moved for summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for exclusion or for additional discovery is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu35b2se from Leagle.com. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment Bid in Omori Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The putative class action arises out of the decision by Brandeis to retain the full tuition and fees collected from students for the Spring 2020 semester despite closing its on-campus facilities and transitioning from in-person to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs assert that the failure of Brandeis to reimburse students for a purported tuition differential between in-person and online education, as well as for certain fees, constitutes breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of other students, brought this four-count complaint, alleging breach of contract, both express and implied (Counts I & II), unjust enrichment (Count III) and conversion (Count IV). They seek to recover from Brandeis tuition and fees allegedly paid in consideration for "in-person instruction and use of campus facilities" which were denied to the students during the second half of the Spring 2020 academic term. In November 2020, Brandeis moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. That motion was allowed with respect to Count IV but otherwise denied. Brandeis now moves for summary judgment on the remaining claims: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Judge Gorton divides his consideration of the breach of contract claims between tuition refunds and the fees that the Plaintiffs seek to have reimbursed and then addresses their claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges two claims for breach of contract: for breach of an express contract and for breach of an implied contract. Judge Gorton addresses only whether a reasonable jury could find breach of an implied contract for an in-person education. He finds that neither the FRA nor the Schedule constitute an express agreement precluding the implied contract that the Plaintiffs assert. Because neither the FRA nor the Schedule precludes an implied right to an in-person education, Judge Gorton considers whether such a guarantee may be implied by the parties' contractual agreement. Viewed in its totality, he determines that the evidence cited by the Plaintiffs creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they had an implied contractual right to an in-person education in exchange for tuition. Judge Gorton also concludes that Brandeis' materials do not support its claimed discretion to shift all instruction online, without consequence, in the event of a public health emergency. It would be unreasonable to construe the inapposite and limited provisions identified by Brandeis so broadly as to allow it to alter the character of its core educational offerings so fundamentally. Brandeis insists that, in any event, the Plaintiffs will be unable to prove damages for any breach of contract they allege. To the extent that the Plaintiffs are able to establish a consistent difference in cost, Judge Gorton says they could then apply that differential to the undergraduate program in which they participated. Because the educational malpractice doctrine precludes consideration of educational quality, the Plaintiffs may not compare the cost of an in-person Brandeis education to potentially inapposite online instruction at another university. In light of the full tuition paid by the Plaintiffs and the partial in-person instruction provided by Brandeis, Judge Gorton holds that the Plaintiffs may be entitled to restitution of the difference between the amount of tuition paid and the objective value of the online education they ultimately received. Determination of that difference would be subject to the same principles and limitations. For the reasons he discussed previously with respect to tuition, Judge Gorton concludes that neither the FRA and Schedule nor the Bulletin and Handbook preclude the existence of a nonillusory, implied promise of in-person education in return for fees. However, he says there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Brandeis had and/or breached any contractual obligations with respect to Studio Fee. Thus, Brandeis' motion for summary judgment will be allowed as to the Processing Fee, the Undergraduate Fee and the Senior Program fee but will be denied as to the Studio Fee. Finally, Judge Gorton finds that the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law even though the ultimate resolution of their claim for breach of contract remains uncertain. Thus, the University's motion for summary judgment on the claim for unjust enrichment will be allowed. For the foregoing reasons, Brandeis' motion for summary judgment is allowed as to Claim I (breach of express contract) and Claim III (unjust enrichment); allowed as to the Processing Fee, the Undergraduate Fee and the Senior Program Fee at issue in Claim II (breach of implied contract); but denied as to the tuition and Studio Fee at issue in Claim II. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hnj3y9h from Leagle.com. CALIFORNIA: Parties in Fowler v. Lanier to File Joint Status Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. DAVID M. LANIER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00106-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California orders the parties to file a joint status report, within 14 days from the date of entry of his Order, informing the Court of their intentions and addressing the impact of the changed circumstances. On Jan. 22, 2016, Fowler and Gerawan Farming, Inc., filed the complaint initiating the action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, they challenge the constitutionality of subsections 226.2(g)(2) and (g)(5) of the California Labor Code, which became effective on Jan. 1, 2016. In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs seek a court order declaring those subsections unconstitutional, severing those subsections from that statute, and enjoining the enforcement of those subsections. In September 2017, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Unfortunately, for many reasons, Judge Drozd has been unable to issue an order ruling on those motions since their submission on Nov. 21, 2017. However, while the cross-motions for summary judgment have been pending, the challenged subsections have been automatically repealed as provided by the statute. Thus, it appears that the Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief has been rendered moot. In addition, the gravamen of the Plaintiffs' challenge is that those subsections created a targeted carve-out to preclude only Fowler and Gerawan from asserting Section 226.2's safe-harbor affirmative defense in the two lawsuits that were pending against them at that time: Amaro v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00147 (E.D. Cal.) and Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Company, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00420 (E.D. Cal.). Each of those lawsuits have since been resolved by way of settlement. In Amaro, the Court granted final approval of the parties' class action settlement and closed that case on Oct. 13, 2020. In Aldapa, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement on Aug. 4, 2022, and that motion is now pending before District Judge Ana de Alba. In light of these changed circumstances, and given the fact that the parties in this action have not submitted any substantive filings since April 16, 2019, Judge Drozd finds it appropriate at this time to ascertain the parties' intentions with regard to this case. To that end, he directs that, within 14 days from the date of entry of his order, the parties will file a joint status report informing the Court of their intentions and addressing the impact of the changed circumstances noted on this case. Alternatively, within the same time period, the parties may file a joint stipulation or request under Rule 41 to dismiss this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpm92h54 from Leagle.com. COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (NYSE: CMP) common stock between October 31, 2017 and November 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Local 295 IBT Employer Group Welfare Fund v. Compass Minerals International, Inc., No. 22-cv-2432 (D. Kan.), the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit charges Compass Minerals 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 Compass Minerals class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-compass-minerals-international-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cmp.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. Lead plaintiff motions for the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December 20, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Compass Minerals mines and produces essential minerals, including salt for winter roadway safety and other consumer, industrial, and agricultural uses, and specialty plant nutrition minerals that improve the quality and yield of crops. During the Class Period, Compass Minerals operated three business segments: the Salt segment, the Plant Nutrition North America segment, and the Plant Nutrition South America segment. Within the Salt segment, Compass Minerals operated the largest underground rock salt mine in the world in Goderich, Ontario, Canada, which Compass Minerals routinely hailed as the "crown jewel" of its asset portfolio. Prior to the start of the Class Period, defendants announced that Compass Minerals was investing in upgrades to the mining system at Goderich, from drilling-and-blasting to continuous mining and continuous haulage ("CMCH"), primarily in an effort to reduce costs and improve profitability. The Compass Minerals class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period repeatedly assured investors that the CMCH upgrade at the Goderich mine was on track to materially reduce costs and boost Compass Minerals' operating results starting in 2018. However, defendants' statements were misleading because they failed to tell investors that costs at the Goderich mine were increasing rather than decreasing. The Compass Materials class action lawsuit further alleges that defendants also misrepresented the amount of salt Compass Minerals was able to produce at Goderich using the new CMCH equipment and failed to disclose how the known and ongoing production shortfalls it was experiencing were reasonably expected to reduce its future operating income. On February 13, 2018, Compass Minerals announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017. On the following day, Compass Minerals held an earnings call for analysts and investors to discuss the fourth quarter results. Following the release of the fourth quarter 2017 results, Compass Minerals' stock price declined by more than 9% over the following two trading days. Then, on August 7, 2018, Compass Minerals announced its second quarter of fiscal 2018 results, attributing the decrease in Salt operating earnings to various costs overruns, unrelated to the CMCH transition. Following the release of the second quarter 2018 results, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by 4.3%. Next, October 23, 2018, Compass Minerals pre-announced third quarter 2018 financial results that were significantly below expectations and lowered its outlook for the remainder of the year. On this news, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by more than 30% over the following two trading days. Finally, on November 19, 2018, Compass Energy announced the abrupt termination of its CEO, defendant Francis J. Malecha. On this news, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by an additional 8% over the following three days, further damaging investors. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Compass Minerals common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit. 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 Compass Minerals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.[GN] ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:ESTA) resulting from allegations that the Company may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Establishment Labs securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9304 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 19, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "Establishment Labs: A Financially Stretched Silicone Safety Charade" which alleged, among other things, that "[d]espite claims of superior safety, we found that almost all key safety studies touted by the company have conflicts of interest, with many undisclosed or under-disclosed." Further, the report alleged that "Establishment claims to have successfully piloted a 'revolutionary' technique to place implants through the armpit using local anesthesia (instead of general), claiming the technique will greatly expand its Total Addressable Market (TAM). This type of insertion has been reported since the 1970s and has been widely available for almost 20 years. It has failed to gain traction due to safety risks." The report also alleged that "[b]eyond undisclosed safety questions, we have also identified financial risks. Import/export records show that Establishment ships product to entities formerly owned by the CEO and his family, raising questions of conflicts of interest." On this news, Establishment Labs' stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on October 19, 2022. 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 litigate securities class actions. 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.[GN] FCA US: Court Denies Flynn's Bid to Reconsider Taxation of Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-855-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs. The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against FCA and Harman, asserting consumer fraud claims related to an alleged design defect in the Uconnect system manufactured by Harman and installed in some of FCA's 2013-2015 model vehicles. After over four years of litigation, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal but modified the Judgment to reflect a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without leave to amend. Following the mandate from the Seventh Circuit, the Court granted in part FCA and Harmon's Bill of Costs and corresponding Motions for Taxation of Costs and awarded FCA $86,086.81 in costs and Harman $93,157.96 in costs. Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs. The Plaintiffs assert that the Court's award of costs was based on an evaluation of the record that was both significantly incomplete and demonstrably incorrect. Specifically, they argue that the Court should consider the full record of this litigation which contains "overwhelming evidence" establishing that class members were injured by overpaying for their vehicles. Judge Yandle holds that while the Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's order awarding costs, they fail to identify a manifest error of law or fact committed by the Court in doing so. Accordingly, she denies their motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33a3eztc from Leagle.com. FORGEROCK INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: ForgeRock, Inc. (FORG), relating to its proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, FORG shareholders are expected to receive $23.25 in cash per share they own About Monteverde & Associates We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. [GN] FRAME LA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sep. 15, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portia Mason v. FRAME LA Brands, LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04499-AB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulation to enter briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The deadline for the Plaintiff to September 15, 2023 file her motion for class certification is: -- The Defendant's opposition is October 6, 2023 due on: -- The Plaintiff's reply is due October 27, 2023 on: -- The Hearing is set for: November 17, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3COO4to at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Trivedi v. General Electric Company et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08453, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston, on Oct. 13, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-11746-PBS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. General Electric Company is a globally diversified technology and financial services company. The Company's products and services include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, and household appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer financing, and industrial products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENPACT LLC: Bland Files Suit Over Management Trainees' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYNETTE BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENPACT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-08687 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Class for all hours worked over 40 in each and every workweek. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on January 4, 2022, and commenced work on January 17, 2022 as a Management Trainee - Disputes Investigations Specialist working remotely from her home and reporting to the Jacksonville, Florida Genpact office. The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek while employed by the Defendant. During the workweek of February 7, 2022, Plaintiff estimates that she worked about 43 hours and Defendant did not pay her any compensation and no overtime premium for any hours worked above 40 in the week. Genpact LLC is a professional services firm which trains workers for positions at other companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com GEORGIA: Deaf Individuals Win Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON COBB, MARY HILL, and JOSEPH NETTLES, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION and NAIL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision, Case No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray II entered an order: -- denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are deaf individuals on parole or probation in the State of Georgia. Because the Plaintiffs are on parole or probation in Georgia, they are under the supervision of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS), which also supervises other deaf and hard of hearing individuals. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MVQEmc at no extra charge.[CC] GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Lynn Scott Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LYNN SCOTT, LLC, and THE FARMER'S WIFE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Marvin E. Aspen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift the Stay. The Plaintiffs move to lift the stay the Court entered in March 2021 pending resolution of an overlapping class action, CO Craft, LLC dba Freshcraft v. Grubhub Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01327 (D. Colo.). In May 2020, Freshcraft filed the Colorado Action on behalf of itself and a putative class of restaurants, alleging that Grubhub falsely advertised that the restaurants were closed. It alleged that Grubhub steered business to Grubhub-partnered restaurants and away from unaffiliated restaurants like Freshcraft by falsely advertising that unaffiliated restaurants were closed or did not deliver, when they were in fact open and accepting deliveries. In October 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this case alleging different misconduct against Grubhub. The gist of their Complaint is that Grubhub pretends to be partnered with unaffiliated restaurants like them by misappropriating their trademarks. Diners then suffer poor dining experiences when ordering from the Plaintiffs' restaurants through Grubhub and blame the Plaintiffs, causing reputational damage. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class consisting of "all restaurants included without their permission on Grubhub, Seamless, LevelUp, AllMenus, MenuPages, or any other part of the Grubhub online platform." They bring one count under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and seek, among other things, disgorgement of Grubhub's profits. In January 2021, Freshcraft amended its complaint in the Colorado Action, expanding its putative class to include all unaffiliated restaurants, with certain exclusions not relevant here. With this amendment, the Colorado Action could potentially resolve several aspects of the Plaintiffs' claims. Grubhub then asked the Court to stay the case pending resolution of the Colorado Action, representing that the Colorado Action had settled (the "Original Settlement"), subject to court approval. The Court granted the stay in March 2021. It initially stayed the case for two months. But the motion for approval of the settlement in the Colorado Action remained pending for more than a year. During that time, the Plaintiffs sought to intervene in the Colorado Action, and the Court extended the stay in this case by setting the case over as the parties continued to inform it about the Colorado Action. In July 2022, the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs in this case leave to intervene in the Colorado Action and denied preliminary approval of the Original Settlement without prejudice. The District of Colorado agreed with the Plaintiffs, reasoning that "contrary to the parties' arguments, by releasing any equitable relief without securing any monetary relief, the proposed Settlement would likely preclude the Lynn Scott plaintiffs and putative class from pursuing monetary relief under the Lanham Act, particularly in the form of disgorgement of profits." It therefore denied preliminary approval without prejudice "until the parties have addressed this issue." It also allowed the Plaintiffs in this case to intervene in the Colorado Action. Shortly after the District of Colorado entered its order, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion, arguing that without a pending settlement in the Colorado Action, there is no longer any reason for the stay. But on the same day Grubhub filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion, Grubhub, Freshcraft, and Piper Inn, a new class representative, announced a new settlement (the "Amended Settlement") in the Colorado Action. The Amended Settlement expressly exempts disgorgement under the Lanham Act from the Colorado Action class's release of claims. Citing the Amended Settlement and the pending motion for preliminary approval in the Colorado Action, Grubhub asks the Court to keep the stay in place. Judge Aspen finds that the circumstances have not "substantially changed." The Court entered the stay because settlement of the Colorado Action could both simplify the issues and reduce the burden of litigation in this case, with minimal prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Although the District of Colorado did not approve the Original Settlement, he says the Amended Settlement currently awaiting approval in the Colorado Action would once again have the potential to streamline this action and would minimize the burden upon the parties and the court by avoiding duplicative and inconsistent litigation. Though the Amended Settlement clarifies that it will not resolve the entirety of the Plaintiffs' claims in this case, the Court originally contemplated that even if the Colorado Action targets a narrower subset of conduct than targeted, it would warrant a stay. Thus, the circumstances justifying the stay have not substantially changed. In addition, all of the Plaintiffs' concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the Amended Settlement can and will be addressed in the Colorado Action. The District of Colorado allowed the Plaintiffs to intervene and denied preliminary approval of the Original Settlement to protect their interests. The present Court's task is only determine whether it should continue to wait for what may be a forthcoming resolution of the Colorado Action to streamline and simplify its case without unduly prejudicing the Plaintiffs. It finds that it should. Once again, the Court will reassess after any orders on the pending motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement. For these reasons, Judge Aspen denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift the Stay. The status hearing set for Oct. 20, 2022, is stricken and reset to Jan. 26, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. The parties will provide a status report on the proceedings in the Colorado Action by the earlier of (1) seven days after the District of Colorado resolves the pending motion for preliminary approval of class settlement or (2) Jan. 12, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2sm246kj from Leagle.com. H. N. FERNANDEZ: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. N. Fernandez, Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. H. N. Fernandez, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. H. N. Fernandez is located in New Orleans, Louisiana and primarily operates in the Cafe business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com HANESBRANDS INC: Toussaint Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanesbrands Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Toussaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hanesbrands Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00879-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C., Oct. 13, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Hanesbrands Inc. -- https://www.hanes.com/ -- is an American multinational clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Joel Robert Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Fax: (910) 772-9062 Email: mjr@rhinelawfirm.com jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com HAZEL AND OLIVE: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hazel and Olive, Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hazel and Olive, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08674-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hazel and Olive -- https://www.hazelandolive.com/ -- is an online Womens clothing boutique based out of Rockwall, Texas offering trendy and affordable dresses, shoes, tops, and all other boutique fashion necessities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com HCA-IT&S FIELD: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Martin and Troy Goings, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HCA-IT&S FIELD OPERATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-23323-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought against Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for unpaid wages from the Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime pay as required by the FLSA; liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; reasonable fees and costs; and any further relief this Court deems just and equitable. The Defendant has a uniform policy and practice of consistently requiring its Provider Solutions Specialist and Consulting Solutions Specialist to work more than forty hours per week for a salaried amount without paying them overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs were not paid any overtime compensation despite the fact that the members of the Physicians Services Group worked more than 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with HCA-IT&S as a "Provider Solutions Specialists" who assisted with on-boarding providers and their staff who worked at hospitals within HCA-IT&S. The Plaintiff Goings was employed with HCA-IT&S as a "Consulting Provider Solutions Specialists" who assisted with on-boarding providers and their offices located outside for HCA-IT&S. HCA-IT&S provides technology and support to physicians who provides services to hospitals in the East Florida Division, West Florida Division, Southeast Atlantic Division and North Florida I Division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina Marie Cadogan, Esq. CADOGAN LAW 300 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 107 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954.606.5891 Facsimile: 877.464.7316 Email: gina@cadoganlaw.com kathy@cadoganlaw.com tyler@cadoganlaw.com HEXAGON MANUFACTURING: Frohlich Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Frohlich, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HEXAGON MANUFACTURING INTELLIGENCE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01852-JZ (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 13, 2022), is brought challenging the Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premiums. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. In fact, the Defendant expected Service Engineers to work at least 45 hours per work week. Despite being non-exempt from the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA, the Plaintiff was not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime premiums when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek., says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who has been employed by Defendant within the last three years as a Service Engineer. The Defendant is a business-to-business services company that provides sensor, software and autonomous solutions to industrial manufacturers and other companies across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: jeff@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Lewis, et al., v. Host International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order certifying the three classes as follows: -- LWO Class "All employees of Host who worked at Los Angeles International Airport from January 1, 2018 through June 1, 2019, were members of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11, and who received less than the cash wage portion of the cash wage with health benefits amount under section 10.37.2(a)(2)(1) of the LWO (i.e., less than $12.08 from January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 and less than $13.75 from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019). -- Vacation Time Class "All employees of Host who worked at LAX and were members of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11 and who were laid off or "furloughed" in March/April 2020 and were not paid out accrued but unused vacation at the time of the layoff/furlough." -- Waiting Time Penalties Class "Any member of the LWO Class and/or Vacation Time Class who was laid off or “furloughed” in March-April 2020." The classes will be represented by Plaintiffs Debra Lewis and Marlene Mendoza. Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, Joshua Young of Gilbert & Sackman, and Jeremy Blasi are appointed as class counsel. On October 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs Lewis and Marlene Mendoza filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court. On January 5, 2021, Host International removed the action based on both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. On March 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative one. Host International provides catering services to travelers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N7Ac2l at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT CORP: Cert. Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to End May 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO, an unknown association; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the deadline to complete Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether the action should be certified as a class action to May 19, 2023. The Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between the Parties. The Court entered an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on Aug. 3, 2020 providing that Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether the action should be certified as a class action will be completed within 240 days (i.e., March 31, 2021). As a result of a prior informal discovery conference on Feb. 19, 2021, with Hon. Deborah Barnes, the Court suggested a stipulation and order to continue the factual discovery deadline, which was granted on Feb. 26, 2021, continuing the deadline to June 1, 2021. The Court further amended the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on May 25, 2021 to continue the Phase I discovery deadline to Aug. 2, 2021 to provide the Defendant with additional time to produce electronic copies of time and pay records for a sample of employees the parties agreed to, as the Defendant encountered difficulties in obtaining the requested data in electronic form. Thereafter, the Defendant continued to attempt to obtain and produce the data in electronic form but encountered additional difficulties. On July 15, 2021, the Defendant's counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel that the Defendant would produce time and pay records from its hard copies because it was ultimately unable to obtain complete electronic data. Thereafter, because the Defendant needed additional time to produce the documents and because the Parties needed more time for depositions, the parties submitted additional stipulations and orders to continue the Phase I discovery deadline, which were granted, making the current deadline Nov. 2, 2022. The depositions of the Plaintiff and the Rule 30(b)(6) designee of the Defendant have been completed. The Parties have agreed to participate in mediation and have a mediation scheduled for March 20, 2023, with Gig Kyriacou. They would like to extend the deadline to complete Phase 1 discovery to 60 days after the mediation date to avoid incurring any unnecessary fees and costs. Therefore, the Parties, subject to the approval of the Court, stipulated and agreed as follows: The Court's Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be further amended to continue the deadline to complete Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to whether the action should be certified as a class action to May 19, 2023. Having considered the stipulation and finding good cause, Judge Nunley so ordered. The Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will remain in effect in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyu8ts5 from Leagle.com. Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Justin P. Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Brittany V. Berzin -- bberzin@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, in Elk Grove, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. Joseph W. Ozmer II -- jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- J. Scott Carr -- scarr@kcozlaw.com -- KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as both "Hyatt Corporation" and "Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt Regency Sacramento). ILONA INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ilona, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Ilona, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08690-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ilona, Inc. -- https://ilona.com/ -- has been engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of prestige cosmetics products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley J. McLachlan and Alex D. Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, THE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS ANNUITY AND 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:22-cv-04115 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include International Union of Elevator Constructors ("IUEC" or "Company") and the General Executive Board of the International Union of Elevator Constructors and its members during the Class Period ("Board") and the Board of Trustees of the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan and its members during the Class Period ("Committee") as a result of the Defendants' breach of the fiduciary duty. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries." The Plan had at least $2.6 billion dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $4.9 billion dollars and $4.4 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The December 31, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan ("2020 Auditor Report") at 3. The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments. Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent. The Plan is also large in terms of the number of its participants. From 2016 to 2020, the Plan had between 25,646 and 29,976 participants with account balances. For comparison, according to information derived from ERISApedia.com's database, a service that compiles all Form 5500s filed with the Dept. of Labor ("DOL") by retirement plans, in 2020, there were only 194 defined contribution plans (401k, 401a, and 403b) in the country with 20,000 to 29,999 participants with account balances. Accordingly, the Plan had substantial bargaining power to negotiate favorable recordkeeping and administration fees. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under the ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administration ("RKA") costs. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation the ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan. International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) is a named fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business being 19 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Toogood Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Kennetra Toogood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC5, Case No. 3:22-cv-00551-CHB (W.D. Ky., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jefferson Capital Systems -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is one of the nation's leading purchasers of secured and unsecured consumer bankruptcies and charged-off receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JEFFREY L. RICHARDSON: Liberty Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeffrey L. Richardson, et al. The case is styled as Liberty Property Holdings SC LLC, individually, derivatively on behalf of Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime, Azure Bleu LLC, Jason E. Blosser, Nicole M. Blosser, Eshellah D. Calhoun, Zachary G. Calhoun, David DiMaio, Linda DiMaio, Susan H. Ferguson, Four Parts Whole LLC, Sharon M. Hubbard, Carol A. Messenger, Jeffrey S. Palmer, Summalin Inc., Terry J. Tuminello, Shelley Ware, Jonathan S. Williams, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Jeffrey L. Richardson, William S. Spears, Brent M. Whitesell, Laurie Z. Wunderley, Madeline R. Mercer, Catherine M. Gregor, Dennis J. Sassa, Tracy A. Meadows, Peter A. Grusauskas, William Douglas Management Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08699 (D.S.C., Oct. 13, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, Esq. Rachel Igdal, Esq. THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM LLP 103 Grandview Drive, Suite A Summerville, SC 29483 Phone: (843) 871-6522 Fax: (843) 871-8565 Email: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com rigdal@steinberglawfirm.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Jernigan Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered a joint scheduling stipulation and order: -- Plaintiff shall move for class Dec. 15, 2022 certification and file any supporting expert report(s) by: -- The Defendants shall depose Feb. 15, 2023 the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's expert(s) and file any opposition to Plaintiff's class certification motion, including any opposition expert report(s), by: -- The Plaintiff shall depose April 14, 2023. the Defendants' expert(s) and file any reply, including any rebuttal expert reports, by: -- The Defendants shall seek leave April 30, 2023 of Court to file any sur-reply by: Jernigan is a commercial real estate finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TpqI4u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 432-5100 E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com noam@rgrdlaw.com dcummings@rgrdlaw.com jzweig@rgrdlaw.com The Counsel for the Defendants are Jernigan Capital, Inc., John A. Good, Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J. Thie and Rebecca Owen: Matthew L. DiRisio, Esq. James P. Smith III, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-4633 E-mail: mdirisio@winston.com jpsmith@winston.com JUSTANSWER LLC: Quamina Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Quamina, Kseniya Godun, Moya Mcdowell, Renee Pettit, Kristie Nelson, Tasha Davis and Latoya Foust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUSTANSWER LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06051 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought alleging that, in connection with membership subscription offers made to California consumers, the Defendant violated provisions of California consumer protection law, including the Automatic Renewal Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. Users can access the JustAnswer website on a standard computer, such as a desktop or laptop, or a mobile device. However, JustAnswer also solicits clients through on-line sites such as: pissedconsumers.com or gethuman.com. There are a variety of links displayed on these sites that will take the user to the JustAnswer website. The JustAnswer website displayed after pressing these links can be confusing to the user as the website will display Just answer Playstation Support, Just answer Groupon Support, Just answer Microsoft Support… etc. Some Plaintiffs and class members actually believe they are speaking with those companies' customer support departments. The Plaintiffs used the JustAnswer website to submit a single question to an "expert" for what they believed would be a one-time fee of $5, and JustAnswer automatically enrolled them in a costlier monthly membership. After discovering additional charges to their credit cards, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against JustAnswer, alleging it routinely enrolled online consumers like them in automatic renewal membership programs without providing "clear and conspicuous" disclosures and obtaining their "affirmative consent" as mandated by the Automatic Renewal Law. Had the Plaintiffs known that the Defendant was going to enroll her in an automatically renewing membership program without her knowledge and consent, she would not have submitted her debit card information to Defendant and would not have paid any money to JustAnswer, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs decided to ask legal questions on the JustAnswer website. JustAnswer LLC operates a website, www.justanswer.com, on which users can ask "experts" to answer on a wide variety of topics, including, among others, medical, legal, tax, veterinary, computer, and electrical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com KARYN MANNIX: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karyn Mannix Contemporary Inc. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Karyn Mannix Contemporary Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08660 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Karyn Mannix Contemporary -- https://www.karynmannixcontemporary.com/ -- is a contemporary and secondary market art gallery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 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 KATE ASPEN INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Aspen, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kate Aspen, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08695 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kate Aspen -- https://www.kateaspen.com/ -- is one of the leading designers of wedding favors, bridal shower favors, baby shower favors, christening favors, birthday party favors, decorations, and more.[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 KAY WATERPROOFING: Does Not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Cabrera Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HELBERTH CABRERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. KAY WATERPROOFING CORP., d/b/a KR&R, KAY WATERPROOFING & RESTORATION LLC, d/b/a KR&R, and BARRY GRUMMER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08730 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a scaffolding laborer for Defendants' KR&R entity in New York from October 2019 until his termination in March 2021. Kay Waterproofing Corp. and Kay Waterproofing & Restoration LLC own and operate two building and waterproofing restoring companies at the same location in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 KIA AMERICA: Burnett Files Suit in N.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brandye Burnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00295-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind., Oct. 12, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert T. Dassow, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC 10201 N Illinois St Ste 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Phone: (317) 818-3100 Fax: (317) 818-3111 Email: rdassow@hovdelaw.com KINGLINE NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingline Nutrition, LLC. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kingline Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08677-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kingline Nutrition -- https://www.kinglinenutrition.com/ -- offers edible cookie dough.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Hobbs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC., and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a joint schedule order for remaining briefing on class certification and manager depositions as follows: -- The Defendants to file Opposition December 6, 2022 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: -- The Plaintiffs to file Opposition December 6, 2022 to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification: -- The Plaintiffs to file Reply in January 13, 2023 support of Motion for Class Certification: -- The Defendants to file Reply January 13, 2023 in support of Motion to Deny Class Certification: Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding company based in Phoenix, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yLWznK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com The Defendants are represented by Brian Murphy, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0015 Telephone: (212) 653-8700 E-mail: bmurphy@smrh.com KNOWBE4 INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: KnowBe4, Inc. (KNBE), relating to its proposed acquisition by Vista Equity Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, KNBE shareholders are expected to receive $24.90 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/knowbe4-inc. It is free About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. [GN] KOLD TRANS: Stipulation to Continue Class Certification OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KOLD TRANS, LLC; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC; and KNIGHT PORT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (CD. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order that the class certification briefing schedule and hearing date shall be modified as follows: Filing Deadline -- Plaintiff's Class Certification February 17, 2023 Motion): -- The Defendants' Opposition to May 2, 2023 Class Certification: -- The Plaintiff's Reply June 2, 2023 -- Hearing on Class Certification June 22, 2023 Motion: Kold Trans is a premier provider of truckload and logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W15k7J at no extra charge.[CC] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Gibbons Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bert Gibbons, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA INC., Philips RS North America LLC, Philips Rs North America Holding Corporation, Case No. 3014, was transferred from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01442-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven in 1891.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Krantz Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Krantz, Jimy Ruiz, Donald Boyd, Rudolph Childre, Jr., John Couch, Marc Whaley, Ronald Turner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA INC., Philips RS North America LLC, Philips Rs North America Holding Corporation, Case No. MDL 3014, was transferred from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01443-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven in 1891.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com LAWRENCE FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawrence Fine Art & Antiques, LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lawrence Fine Art & Antiques, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lawrence Fine Art & Antiques -- https://www.lawrence-fine-arts.com/ -- is a high-end transportation, crating, storage and installation company for art and antiques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 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 LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeGrand North America, LLC. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LeGrand North America, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08657-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Legrand -- https://www.legrand.us/ -- provides electrical contracting services and offers innovative products and solutions for the places that people work and live delivering and managing power, light and data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Issues Agreed Protective Order in Klein Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, enters a Stipulated Protective Order in the case, ALLISON KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Ljubljana Inter Auto d.o.o., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff's First Amended Nationwide Class Action Complaint alleges that all Porsche Macan vehicles sold or leased in the United States since 2014 are defective due to engine oil leaks and issues with the front upper control arm bushings in the suspension. The Plaintiff alleges the defects will manifest in all purported class vehicles and present numerous safety hazards. She also claims the defects affect the fuel economy, horsepower, and torque of the Macan as advertised. She and the putative class are claimed to have suffered damages associated with repair costs, loss of use of their vehicles and diminution in value. Certain claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, affirmative and negligent misrepresentation, violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment remain following the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Discovery is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter their Stipulated Protective Order. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material but also any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material regardless of form; and any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time under applicable law. Any Party or Nonparty may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time consistent with the Court's scheduling order. By stipulating to the entry of the Order, no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in the Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by the Order. After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or criminal contempt, financial or evidentiary sanctions, reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action at the discretion of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9barjx from Leagle.com. LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY, Anika P. Brunson -- anika.brunson@lhlaw.com -- Soo A. Hong -- sooh@lhlaw.com -- Attorneys for Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. DLA PIPER LLP (US), Christopher M. Young -- christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- Matthew A. Goldberg -- matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com -- (pro hac vice) Timothy P. Pfenninger -- timothy.pfenninger@dlapiper.com -- (pro hac vice), Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C., Filippo Marchino -- FM@XLAWX.com -- Carlos X. Colorado -- CC@XLAWX.com -- Thomas E. Gray -- TG@XLAWX.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff Allison Klein. LOONEY LABORATORIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Looney Laboratories, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Looney Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08646 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Looney Labs, Inc. -- https://www.looneylabs.com/ -- is a small game company based in College Park, Maryland.[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 LOVEBUG NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovebug Nutrition, Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lovebug Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08678-JMF-OTW (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LoveBug Probiotics -- https://lovebugprobiotics.com/ -- has created an award-winning line of probiotic supplements for the whole family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com MAINSTAGE MGMT: Wins in Part Summary Judgment Bid in Layton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BROOKE LAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAINSTAGE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1636-N (N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants in part Mainstage's motion for summary judgment. The Order addresses Mainstage Management, Inc., Nick's Mainstage, Inc. -- Dallas PT's d/b/a PT Men's Club, and Nick Mehmeti's (collectively "Mainstage") threshold motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Brooke Layton and Ashlynn Shipley, exotic dancers at a Dallas-area adult entertainment establishment, instituted this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA"). Both Plaintiffs entered into License and Lease Agreements with Mainstage's club. Between them, the Plaintiffs worked at the club from 2018 until 2020, during which time they allege Mainstage paid them below the federal minimum wage. They claim that Mainstage misclassified them as independent contractors and then grossly underpaid them. The Plaintiffs initiated the case as a collective action purporting to represent a class of similarly situated Mainstage employees. Mainstage then filed a motion to dismiss, partially based on a contractual defense. The Court could not consider the Licensing Agreement Mainstage sought to enforce but granted leave for Mainstage to file an additional threshold motion for summary judgment. Mainstage now moves for summary judgment, arguing that (1) failure to comply with a notice provision in the Licensing Agreement bars Plaintiffs' claims, and (2) Plaintiffs waived their right to bring a collective action. Judge Godbey concludes that the notice provision in the Licensing Agreement does not bar the Plaintiffs' claims because it is merely a covenant. However, because Mainstage has established a valid collective action waiver, he grants the motion for summary judgment regarding the Plaintiffs' collective action claims. The Plaintiffs' individual claims may proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxsta8f from Leagle.com. MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Scheduling Order Entered in Hinton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shirley Hinton v. Management and Training Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03936-SSS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f) report and proposed deadlines for class certification motion and hearing as follows: Event Deadline -- Deadline to Complete Class March 31, 2023 Certification Discovery: -- Deadline to File Motion for April 21, 2023 Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Opposition May 19, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Reply to June 2, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: -- Class Certification Hearing: June 16, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLvvX7 at no extra charge.[CC] MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STEMMELIN v. MATTERPORT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04168-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order and vacating hearing. The Court says, "The Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard. He primarily stresses that it was not appropriate 6 to move for summary judgment prior to a decision on class certification. The class certification motion was denied on March 14, 2022, more than three months before the dispositive motion deadline. By design, this gave plaintiff more than enough time to prepare a summary judgment motion. Indeed, plaintiff did not even raise this motion until more than two months after the deadline passed. At no point during the interim did plaintiff raise the 11 issue of needing more time. In short, plaintiff has not been diligent. The withdrawal of plaintiff's co-counsel has no bearing on these issues. Nor does permitting summary judgment now serve judicial economy. The motion is denied. The hearing is vacated." In this false and deceptive advertising action, plaintiff seeks to modify the scheduling order to file a motion for partial summary judgment. Matterport is a developer of a 3D media platform used to establish 3D and virtual reality models. Sunnyvale, California, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CQ9J4h at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2670: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in Seafood Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-MD-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain State Law Claims. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: (1) End Payer Plaintiffs (2) Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs (3) W. Lee Flowers & Co., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01226 (4) Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02212 (5) Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02787. The Motion was filed by Defendants StarKist Co., Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International ("COSI"), Thai Union Group PCL, Del Monte Corp., Lion Capital (Americas), Inc., Lion Capital LLP, and Big Catch Cayman LP. Numerous civil actions have been filed against COSI, Bumble Bee, StarKist, and their executives, alleging conspiracy to fix and maintain supracompetitive pricing for packaged tuna in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. The first such action was filed on Aug. 3, 2015 -- Olean Wholesale Groc. Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 15cv1714 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015). These actions were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") for pretrial proceedings before the Court. The Court divided the Plaintiffs into four tracks: (1) Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs"), who are direct purchasers proceeding individually; (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, who are proceeding on behalf of a putative class; (3) Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), who are indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class; and (4) End Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs"), who are consumers proceeding on behalf of a putative class. Presently before the Court is the Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs, EPPs, CFPs, DAPs, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("AWG"), and W. Lee Flowers & Co., jointly filed a Memorandum in Opposition. The Defendants first argue South Carolina's consumer protection statute expressly bars class action claims and therefore EPP and CFP classes fail as a matter of law. According to them, both the plain text of the Rules Enabling Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), dictate that Rule 23 cannot supply EPPs and CFPs with a cause of action that the South Carolina legislature expressly precluded. While this Court previously considered whether SCUPTA's prohibition against "representative" claims precludes the pursuit of those claims under Rule 23, the Defendants assert the Court did so prior to class certification and "in the context of limited briefing." They thus request that the Court reconsiders. Judge Sabraw holds that the Court's prior Order now has more, rather than less, support in the controlling case law. An argument for reconsideration based on an intervening change in law or error in the prior decision as to Shady Grove is therefore unavailing. The Defendants have not met the high bar for reconsideration of the Court's prior order and their motion as to SCUPTA is thus denied. The Defendants then argue that CFPs' and EPPs' South Carolina claims for unjust enrichment fail as a matter of law because South Carolina bars indirect purchaser recovery in class actions. Judge Sabraw finds that their motion and reply fail to cite any authority or present any argument in support of their assertion, and the Court has previously upheld these claims. Because the Defendants' argument is conclusory, she finds summary judgment inappropriate as to the EPPs' and CFPs' South Carolina unjust enrichment claims. The Defendants next assert that the CFPs' and EPPs' inclusion of South Carolina claimants under California's Cartwright Act fails as a matter of law because South Carolina bars representative suits, presenting a material conflict of law under Ninth Circuit precedent. They seek to extinguish these multistate classes, while the Plaintiffs ask the Court to excise South Carolina claimants. Judge Sabraw holds that allowing a nationwide class based on California antitrust law would allow claimants from South Carolina, which abides by federal precedent, to make claims where their state government has disallowed it. She also holds that South Carolina has an interest in delineating the reach and scope of recovery for indirect purchasers, and its choice to follow federal precedent evinces a policy judgment that should not be cast aside. Further, she holds that the inclusion of South Carolina claimants in CFPs' and EPPs' California Cartwright claim fails as a matter of law. Notwithstanding Defendants' prevailing arguments, she finds the Defendants' suggested remedy -- the extinguishment of CFPs' and EPPs' multistate class brought under the California Cartwright Act -- a disproportionately harsh remedy. It is more appropriate to maintain the class and excise the South Carolina claimants. The Defendants further assert that DAP Flowers' claim pursuant to the South Carolina antitrust statute fails as a matter of law because the statute applies to conduct affecting only intrastate commerce and provides no relief or remedy for the interstate commerce at issue. Judge Sabraw rules that it is uncontested that the Defendants here are engaged in interstate commerce and that the products whose prices are at issue were manufactured outside South Carolina and shipped there for sale. As South Carolina has limited the application of its state antitrust statutes to intrastate commerce, the SCAA does not apply. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' SCAA claim fails. Finally, the Defendants argue that DAPs Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative ("AFMC") and AWG, respectively, are not entitled to prejudgment interest. Judge Sabraw denies as moot the Defendants' request for summary judgment as to prejudgment interest under Kansas law, as AFMC has not stated a claim under Kansas law. And, as the trial court has discretion to award prejudgment interest even when the damages are unliquidated and that decision is appropriate for post-trial consideration, she denies the Defendants' request for summary judgment as to prejudgment interest. Accordingly, Judge Sabraw grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. She denies the Defendants' motion as to the EPPs' and CFPs' SCUPTA claim and South Carolina unjust enrichment claims. She grants Defendants' motion as to the CFPs' and EPPs' multistate Cartwright Act class, such that South Carolina claimants are excised from that class. She also grants the Defendants' motion as to DAP Flowers' SCAA claim. She denies the Defendants' motion as to prejudgment interest for DAPs AFMC and AWG. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8bpfy6 from Leagle.com. MEDICAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss SASB Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SASB CORPORATION, individually and as the representative of a class of a similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-14206-CIV-CANNON/McCabe (S.D. Fla.), Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The cause comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a report and recommendation. On Sept. 16, 2022, Judge McCabe issued a report recommending that the Defendant's Motion be denied. The Defendant filed Objections to the Report, and the Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendant's Objections. Judge Cannon has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the Defendant's Objections, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant's Objections, and the full record in the case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, including the authority and analysis provided in the Defendant's Objections, she finds Judge McCabe's Report to be well-reasoned and correct. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied for the reasons set forth in the Report. Accordingly, the Report is accepted. Judge Cannon denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant will file an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint by Nov. 1, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxkn5jf from Leagle.com MESA PACKING: Cy Pres Recipient Given $66K in Miguel-Sanchez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM MIGUEL-SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. MESA PACKING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00823-VKD (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, orders that the net amount of $65,994.50 be paid to the parties' cy pres recipient, Salud Para La Gente, in Watsonville, California. Following final approval of the class action settlement, the Court extended the class payment period to permit the Settlement Administrator to conduct additional searches and effectuate payment to any unpaid class members who could be located. On Oct. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended final payment report stating that an additional 17 class members were located and paid. They further report that $65,994.50 now remains of the settlement fund for distribution to the previously approved cy pres recipient, Salud. They request that the Court orders payment of the remaining funds to the cy pres recipient. In the alternative, they propose distribution of the remaining funds on a pro rata basis. Preliminarily, Judge DeMarchi holds that if the Court were to distribute the remaining funds pro rata to the 548 class members who were successfully paid, the distributions would be minimal. Plaintiffs report that the average additional payment would be less than $120, with a quarter of the payments less than $15. The Plaintiffs report that an additional distribution would also incur further administration costs. Because any further distribution would be minimal relative to the payments already made to class members, Judge DeMarchi finds that distribution to the cy pres beneficiary is appropriate. The designated cy pres recipient, Salud, provides healthcare services in California's Pajaro Valley, without regard to whether a patient is able to pay for those services. It has 10 clinic sites and nearly 30,000 patients. Approximately 75% of Salud's patients do not speak English. Judge DeMarchi finds that the cy pres recipient has an indirect connection to the objectives of the underlying statutes at issue in this case. The Plaintiffs brought claims pursuant to the California Labor Code; the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1801 et seq.; and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq. While Salud does not directly work on issues of housing or transportation, it appears to serve the same community the AWPA seeks to protect. Therefore, there is a sufficient connection between the cy pres recipient and the objectives of the underlying statutes at issue. Salud also "serves the interests of the silent class members." As noted, it provides healthcare services for individuals living in California's Pajaro Valley, where many individuals in the class work. Its history further demonstrates that they serve the interests of the settlement class: "Salud was founded in 1978." Finally, Judge DeMarchi notes that there were no objectors to the parties' settlement agreement throughout the process. For the foregoing reasons, Judge DeMarchi orders that the net amount of $65,994.50 be paid to the parties' cy pres recipient, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, California. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/47vf4xcz from Leagle.com. MINISO GROUP: Ashraf's Securities Suit in Preliminary Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- MINISO Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2022, that the Company and certain of its current officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned Adeel Ashraf v. MINISO Group Holding Limited et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-05815) filed on August 17, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, in sum and substance, that the Company's registration and prospectus ("Offering Documents") were false or misleading, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in that the Offering Documents allegedly misrepresented the Company's franchisee business model and failed to disclose that the IPO proceeds were diverted for improper purposes and that the Company's business was in decline. Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated investors and seek monetary damages on behalf of the class. This action is currently in its preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of the action and estimate the potential losses, if any. MINISO Group Holding Ltd is a China-based holding company mainly engaged in the retail and wholesale business of lifestyle and pop toy products. MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Suit Remanded to Caldwell Super. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, remanded the case, NICKIE MULLINS, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-00120-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C.), to North Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA"), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C.G.S. Section 75-50, et seq. (the "NCDCA"), the North Carolina Collection Agency Act, N.C.G.S. Section 58-70, et seq., and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Section 75-1.1, et seq. when it used a third-party mail vendor to prepare and mail three debt collection letters to her between June and October 2020. The Plaintiff initially filed her putative class action in North Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court, and the Defendant timely removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441(b) based on the alleged federal statutory violation. However, the notice of removal does not discuss or state any facts establishing that the parties have met the Court's Article III standing requirements. Indeed, the Plaintiff moved to remand this action to state court on March 8, 2022, on the grounds of lack of standing, but then withdrew that motion. Having now carefully reviewed all seven recent decisions on the question of the Plaintiff's standing to assert her lone Federal FDCPA claim, Judge Bell remains persuaded that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged standing based on a "concrete injury." In the absence of any alternative basis for federal jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to the appropriate North Carolina state court. Ms. Mullins alleges that the letter-mailing vendor "populated" her private information "into a prewritten template," "printed" the letters, and "mailed" them to her. However, the Amended Complaint does not allege that the information forwarded to the third-party vendor was actually "read" by any person, that the Plaintiff was aware that the collection letters she received were prepared by someone other than an employee of the Defendant or that she suffered any harm as a consequence of the use of the third-party vendor beyond the alleged statutory FDCPA violation. Judge Bell holds that Mullins has failed to sufficiently allege that her private information was publicized in any actual, meaningful sense. Thus, she has not plead a claim sufficiently similar to the tort of "invasion of privacy" resulting from public disclosure. Because the Plaintiff does not allege that anyone read her private information nor any other allegations sufficient to plead the harm that an "invasion of privacy" claim based on public disclosure intends to remedy, she cannot maintain standing based on her assertion that her FDCPA claim is "closely related" to such a claim. Therefore, in sum, the Plaintiff merely alleges a "bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm." She thus lacks Article III standing to assert her FDCPA claim. There are no other valid grounds for the Court to assume jurisdiction and Judge Bell declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claims. Accordingly, he remands the case to North Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to close the matter in this Court in accordance with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5zxjthkc from Leagle.com. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Sues Over False Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ David Wallenstein, Montgomery Summa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia corporation, MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AND NABISCO, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06033 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought concerning MDLZ's representation that Wheat Thins crackers are "100% WHOLE GRAIN", meaning that all (or 100%) of the grain ingredients in Wheat Thins are whole grain ingredients when they aren't. One of the primary grain ingredients in Wheat Thins products is cornstarch, which is a refined grain. By definition, refined grains are not and cannot be whole grains. Thus, MDLZ's representation that all (or 100%) of the grain ingredients in Wheat Thins products are "whole grain" is patently false and utterly misleading. The representation that Wheat Thins crackers are "100% Whole Grain" is a pillar of the Wheat Thins brand. The representation is prominently displayed on the front, side and back panel of Wheat Thins packages in large, bold, colorful font. The representation that Wheat Thins are "100% Whole Grain" crackers is uniform across MDLZ's marketing and labeling for the Wheat Thins product line. "100% WHOLE GRAIN" is a key differentiator that gives MDLZ a unique position in the cracker and snack product market. This representation increases sales and induces consumers to purchase Wheat Thins and pay more than they otherwise would for the products. The Plaintiffs relied on the misrepresentation alleged herein in making their decision to purchase Wheat Thins and they would not have purchased Wheat Thins if they had known they were not "100% WHOLE GRAIN." The Plaintiffs were injured in fact and lost money as a result of MDLZ's improper conduct. Alternatively, each of the Plaintiffs would not have paid as much as they did for Wheat Thins if they had known they were not "100% WHOLE GRAIN." The Plaintiffs were injured in fact and lost money as a result of MDLZ's improper conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased various flavors of Wheat Thins. Mondelez International, Inc. markets and sells Wheat Thins throughout the United States, including sales in California and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Fox, Esq. Joanna Fox, Esq. Courtney Vasquez, Esq. FOX LAW, APC 225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: 858-256-7616 Fax: 858-256-7618 Email: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com Courtney@FoxLawAPC.com MSK RESTAURANT: Borja Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ JESUS BORJA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. MSK RESTAURANT CORP d/b/a YANGSANDO, and KEUM SOON PARK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06178 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed salary; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; illegally retained gratuities; unpaid spread of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as busboy at YangSanDo Sushi & Roll restaurant from August 2020 until his termination in October 2021. MSK Restaurant Corp. owns and operates Yangsando Sushi & Roll restaurant located in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Buelvas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery Systems, Ltd. The case is styled as Paul Buelvas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRS doing business as: Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD., Case No. 6:22-cv-00400 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. NRS doing business as Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD. -- https://www.nationwiderecoverysystems.com/ -- is a nationally recognized Accounts Receivable Management Company providing services to the Healthcare, Commercial, and Consumer industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Nov. 10 Deadline to File Class Status Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villafan, et al., v. Northwest Motorsport, LLC et al., Case No. (), the Parties stipulate and jointly request relief regarding the deadline for filing motions related to class certification: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Deadline for filing Oct. 20, 2022 Nov. 10, 2022 motions related to class certification The Plaintiffs include SETH VILLAFAN, a single man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but separated man. The Defendants include NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington limited liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING, residents of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof; NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD and JANE DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital communities; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CVLUYR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene N. Bolin, Jr.,Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., WSBA #11450 144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (425) 582-8165 Facsimile: (888) 527-2710 E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by Paul S. Smith, Esq. Martin J. Pujolar, Esq. 901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: 206-689-8500 Facsimile: 206-689-8501 E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law psmith@foum.law NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MICHAEL KRACKENBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, META PLATFORMS, INC., FACEBOOK HOLDINGS, LLC, FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC, and INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04203, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 13, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06020-WHO to the proceeding. This class action arises from the Defendants' alleged use of Meta Pixel to unlawfully collect the private medical information of Northwestern Memorial Hospital's patients and to use that data for their own profit. Northwestern Memorial Hospital is an academic medical center located on Northwestern University's Chicago campus in Streeterville, Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com - and - Rusty A. Payton, Esq. PAYTON LEGAL GROUP LLC 20 N Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (773) 682-5210 E-mail: info@payton.legal - and - Nick Heath Wooten, Esq. DC LAW, PLLC 1012 West Anderson Lane Austin, TX 78757 Telephone: (512) 220-1800 Facsimile: (512) 220-1801 E-mail: nick@texasjustice.com The Defendants are represented by: David A. Carney, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Key Tower Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-7634 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: dcarney@bakerlaw.com - and - Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Joshua Michael Fliegel, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1 N. Wacker Dr. Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com jfliegel@bakerlaw.com - and - Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 E-mail: abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 E-mail: clebel@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com - and - Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com - and - Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Esq. KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com - and - Lauren R Goldman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 E-mail: LGoldman@gibsondunn.com - and - Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 E-mail: mkutcher@cooley.com - and - Trenton Van Oss, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 887-3716 E-mail: TVanOss@gibsondunn.com NYC VELO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYC Velo, Inc. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NYC Velo, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06137-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NYCVelo -- https://www.nycvelo.com/ -- offers a collection of bikes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NYGG ASIA: Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Due Feb. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSEPH PUDDU, MARK GHITIS, VALERY BURLAK, and ADAM BUTTER, Plaintiffs v. NYGG (ASIA), LTD. and BENJAMIN TIANBING WEI a/k/a/ BENJAMIN WEY, Defendants, Case No. 15cv8061 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the parties to move for preliminary approval of their class action settlement agreement no later than Feb. 3, 2023, and will not be extended. Judge Cote notes that it has been reported to the Court that the parties have reached a settlement. The Plaintiff's Oct. 6, 2022 motion for sanctions is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/u9fu5d9a from Leagle.com. ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Orthofix Medical Inc. (OFIX), relating to its proposed acquisition by SeaSpine Holdings Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, OFIX shareholders are expected to receive 0.4163 shares of SeaSpine per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/orthofix-medical-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. [GN] ORVIS CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Farris Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN FARRIS, LANCE GROFF, and TOM THEUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00007 (D. Vt.), Judge Christine Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont grants Orvis' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against Orvis or selling and renting its mailing lists, which included their names and other information, to third parties. They allege this violates their statutory rights under California, Illinois, and Ohio law. Mr. Farris is a resident of California, Mr. Groff is a resident of Illinois, and Mr. Theus is a resident of Ohio. Orvis is a Vermont corporation which sells sporting goods. Each named Plaintiff purchased products from Orvis while they were "residing in" and "physically present" in their home state. Orvis allegedly collects the Plaintiffs' and all other customers' names and addresses, as well as age, gender, income, ethnicity, religion, children's age, and information pertaining to their purchase of products from Orvis. It compiles this information and rents or sells the resulting "mailing lists," directly or through intermediaries, on the open market. The Plaintiffs assert Orvis does not obtain consent or provide "effective" notice before selling or otherwise distributing the mailing lists which they contend is a practice which put customers at risk of serious harm from scammers. They contend that, in distributing the mailing lists, Orvis has used their names, which allegedly have commercial value, on or in, or in connection with products, merchandise, goods, or services, or the sale or rental of such things. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of three distinct classes, each consisting of "all state residents who, at any point in the relevant statutory period, had their names appear on or in a mailing list sold or rented, or offered for sale or rental, by Orvis." Mr. Farris seeks to represent California residents, Mr. Groff seeks to represent Illinois residents, and Mr. Theus seeks to represent Ohio residents. For each class, the Plaintiffs allege the crux of their claims is a misappropriation of their names as an aspect of their identity. The Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action. In Count I, Mr. Farris, individually and on behalf of the California Class, asserts a claim for a violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344, alleging Orvis knowingly used and continues to 'use' his and the other California Class members' names and likenesses, which allegedly have significant commercial value, on or in such mailing lists. The Plaintiffs allege this use is not authorized or privileged. The Plaintiffs allege Mr. Farris and the California Class members "have been injured, in California" by Orvis' actions and seek (1) $750 in statutory liquidated damages or actual damages, whichever is greater, as well as any profits from Orvis' unauthorized uses; (2) punitive damages; (3) declaratory relief; (4) injunctive relief prohibiting further use and requiring Orvis to obtain prior consent in the future; and (5) costs and attorney's fees. In Count II, Mr. Groff, individually and on behalf of the Illinois Class, asserts Orvis violated 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1075/30(a) by selling, or offering to sell, mailing lists with its Illinois customers' names and other information. Plaintiffs allege this use is not authorized or privileged. For violations of their rights of publicity, the Plaintiffs seek (1) an injunction requiring Orvis to seek prior written consent from Illinois customers; (2) $1,000 in statutory liquidated damages for Mr. Groff and each Illinois Class member; and (3) costs and attorney's fees. In Count III, Mr. Theus, individually and on behalf of the Ohio Class, alleges Orvis violated Ohio Rev. Code Section 2471.02 by using Ohio customers' names and other information, which have significant commercial value, on or in connection with the mailing lists that it sells and rents. The Plaintiffs seek (1) statutory liquidated damages between $2,500 and $10,000 per violation for Mr. Theus and each Ohio Class member; (2) punitive damages; (3) an injunction requiring Orvis to seek prior written consent from Ohio customers; and (4) costs and attorney's fees. On Jan. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint and on Feb. 24, 2022 filed an Amended Complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated schedule, Orvis moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 11, 2022. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs opposed Orvis' motion, and Orvis replied on June 27, 2022. After a hearing on July 11, 2022, the Court took the pending motion under advisement. Orvis argues that the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because their names and information are not publicly associated with the mailing lists as no one would know their names were included in the lists unless one purchased a list. The Plaintiffs respond that their claims fall within the plain language of the relevant statutes. Judge Reiss rules that (i) because the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a violation of the right of publicity under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344, Orvis' motion to dismiss Count I is granted; (ii) because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead the essential elements of the IRPA claim, Orvis' motion to dismiss Count II is granted; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' Ohio claims do not allege that Orvis was "taking advantage of their reputation, prestige, or other value associated with them, for purposes of publicity, so she grants Orvis' motion to dismiss Count III. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss grants Orvis' motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs' claims are novel and may benefit from repleading, she grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 20 days of her Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ztrr7ry from Leagle.com. PARADISE EXTERIORS: Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN DUMAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PARADISE EXTERIORS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-80356-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification expert disclosure deadlines by two weeks, up to and including October 26, 2022 for the expert disclosures and November 14, 2022 for the rebuttal expert disclosures. Paradise Exteriors is family owned and operated hurricane impact window and door company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S8fLmF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendant is represented by Diane J. Zelmer, Esq. BERENSON LLP 4495 Military Trail, Suite 203 Jupiter FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 429-4496 Facsimile: (703) 991-2195 E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com hac@berensonllp.com PEARL RIVER MART: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl River Mart NYC LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pearl River Mart NYC LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06139 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pearl River Mart NYC -- https://pearlriver.com/ -- is an iconic NYC destination for Asian-inspired home goods, fashion, snacks and everything in between.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargent, et al., v. School District of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01509-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the plaintiffs move to certify a class of parents and students under Rule 23. In the alternative, the class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). The class, if certified, will be represented by the plaintiffs Sherice Sargent, Michele Sheridan, and Joshua Meyer -- each individually and as next friend of their minor children. The proposed class consists of: -- all students and parents of students who: (1) applied for admission to a Philadelphia criteria-based school but were denied admission because of the school district's racially discriminatory admissions standards; or (2) will apply for admission to a criteria-based school in the future but face an increased risk of being denied admission because of the school district's decision to abandon merits-based admission standards and motion for class certification pursue racial balancing in the student body of its criteria-based schools. The common characteristics of these class members is that they are all parents of students, or students themselves, who have been or will be adversely affected by the Philadelphia school district's racially discriminatory admissions policies. On May 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On May 12, 2022, the Court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered that the motion "be resubmitted for consideration after the close of pleadings and a ruling is made on the demand for a preliminary injunction." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SpbtHJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter S. Zimolong III, Esq. ZIMOLONG, LLC Post Office Box 552 Villanova, PA 19085-0552 Telephone: (215) 665-0842 E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com - and - Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 Facsimile: (512) 686-3941 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law - and - Gene P. Hamilton, Esq. VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 300 Independence Avenue SE Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Skrtich Sues Over ERISA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Jerome M. Skrtich and Joseph F. Peck, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the Benefit Administration Committee of the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Retirement Plan and John/Jane Does 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-01753-DMF (D. Ariz., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought against Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the Benefit Administration Committee of the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Retirement Plan (the "Committee") and the Committee's individual members concerning the failure to pay joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits under the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Retirement Plan (the "Plan") in amounts that satisfy the actuarial equivalence requirements in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. By failing to pay JSA benefits in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to the single life annuities offered to participants under the Plan, the Defendants cause retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA. Pinnacle West sponsors the Plan. Under the Plan, participants earn retirement benefits in the form of a single life annuity, which the Plan calls a "straight life annuity" ("SLA"). An SLA provides participants with monthly payments for the rest of their lives when they retire. The Plan also offers participants three joint and survivor ("JSA") options. A JSA is an annuity for the participant's life with a contingent annuity payable to the participant's beneficiary (usually a spouse), which is expressed as a percentage of the amount paid during the participant's life. The Plan offers JSAs in percentages of 50, 75 and 100. Thus, a 50% JSA is a JSA that pays the spouse half of the amount that was paid to the participant before his or her death; a 75% JSA pays the spouse three quarters; and a 100% JSA pays the same amount. Both of the Plaintiffs are receiving 100% JSAs. Calculating present value requires inputting actuarial assumptions concerning projected mortality and interest rates. Mortality tables for the participant (and, in the case of a JSA, the participant's beneficiary) predict how long the participant and beneficiary will live to account for the likelihood of each future benefit payment being made. Over the last several decades, mortality rates have generally improved with advances in medicine and better collective lifestyle habits. People who retired recently are expected to live longer than those who retired in previous generations. Older mortality tables predict that people near (and after) retirement age will die at a faster rate than current mortality tables. As a result, using an older mortality table decreases the present value of a JSA and--interest rates being equal--the monthly payments retirees receive. To determine the amount of a benefit, mortality and interest rate assumptions, together, generate a "conversion factor," which is expressed as a percentage of the benefit being compared. The conversion factor can also be calculated by dividing the actual amounts payable under the plan. The Defendants calculate the conversion factor and, therefore, the present value of the JSAs offered to participants, using the 1971 Group Annuity Mortality Table for Males (the "1971 GAM"), a mortality table that is over 50 years old. By using mortality tables based on data from the 1960s, Defendants depress the present value of JSA benefits (relative to the SLA) resulting in monthly payments that are materially lower than they would be if Defendants used reasonable, up-to-date actuarial assumptions. In sum, the Defendants are causing the Plaintiffs and Class Members to receive less than they should as a pension benefit each month, which will continue to affect them throughout their retirements. The Defendants' conduct is particularly egregious because Pinnacle West uses current, updated actuarial assumptions to calculate and report its Plan liabilities in its audited financial statements and then justifies increasing its customers' utility rates because of these increased liabilities. For example, Pinnacle West's pension liabilities increased by $67 million when it updated the mortality assumption in 2014 to the most-recent applicable table and then cited this increase as a reason for increasing the utility rates it charges customers. In other words, Pinnacle West uses current, realistic mortality assumptions when reporting its pension costs to justify increasing the utility rates it charges customers, but uses mortality rates from the 1960s when calculating retirees' Plan benefits. The Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court declaring that the actuarial assumptions used to calculate JSA benefits under the Plan produce benefits that are less than the actuarial equivalent of the SLA offered to participants; requiring Defendants to pay all amounts improperly withheld in the past and to be withheld in the future; requiring Defendants to recalculate Plaintiffs' JSA benefits in a manner consistent with ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements; requiring Defendants to increase the amounts of the Plaintiffs' future benefit payments; and such other relief as the Court determines to be just and equitable, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Plan participants who worked for Pinnacle West. Pinnacle West is a holding company that is headquartered and has its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 248-0088 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com PIZZA PALS INC: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Santiago, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PIZZA PALS INC. d/b/a GRAVESEND PIZZA, and JOSEPH POSA, Case No. 1:22-cv-06188 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation due to a fixed salary, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for 6 days per week, for a total of 42 hours per week. However, Plaintiff SANTIAGO was not paid overtime premiums for the 2 overtime hours he worked each week, and there was no agreement that his fixed salary would cover overtime premiums. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information returns regarding Plaintiff and Class Members with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The Plaintiff further alleges on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, that the Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working as a pizzaman for the Defendants at their Pizzeria in April 2021. The Defendants operate a pizzeria under the trade name "Gravesend Pizza," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 PLAID ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaid Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Plaid Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08698 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaid Enterprises, Inc. -- https://plaidonline.com/ -- is one of the world's largest, most diverse manufacturers of creative do-it-yourself products.[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 PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Approves $25K Service Award for Montera ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enters an order: a. denying the Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; b. denying the Defendant's for a new trial; and c. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion seeking an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and a service award for Ms. Montera. Ms. Montera brought this lawsuit on behalf of New York consumers who had purchased Joint Juice, a beverage containing glucosamine and chondroitin that is sold by Premier. The case was brought as one of numerous certified class actions alleging false advertising and other claims arising from Premier's promotion of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements. Each class action concerns a set of plaintiffs in a different state. Initially filed in December 2016, this action concerned consumers in New York and was the first of the related cases to proceed to trial. The case proceeded to trial in May and June 2022. Following a nine-day trial in May and June 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding that Premier engaged in deceptive acts and practices, in violation of GBL Section 349, and deceptive or misleading advertising, in violation of the New York General Business Law ("GBL")Section 350. Judgment in the amount of $12,895,454.90 was thereafter entered against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff and the Class in July 2022, after which the parties each filed post-trial motions. The Defendant brings a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") and moves for a new trial, while the Plaintiff brings a motion seeking an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and a service award for Ms. Montera. In its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Premier raises several familiar arguments, including that the Plaintiff failed to prove the elements of injury, causation, materiality, and deceptiveness. Judge Seeborg finds that some of these arguments have been augmented, but nothing in the record has changed: the jury's verdict was supported by ample evidence as to each element of both claims, and thus a reasonable jury would have had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the Plaintiff. The Defendant's additional arguments were not raised in its initial motion for JMOL. The only further inquiry is thus limited to reviewing the jury's verdict for plain error and reversing "only if such plain error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice." Again, the jury's verdict was not plainly erroneous; as noted, it was well supported. Hence, the motion is denied. Next, Premier presents numerous arguments for why it is entitled to a new trial. Like with its renewed motion for JMOL, Judge Seeborg finds that nearly all of them have been raised before and can be dismissed outright, including that: (1) the Defendant was not entitled to invoke the GBL's safe harbor provision due to its failure timely to notify the FDA as required by the statute, and thus it was not entitled to a jury instruction on this subject; and (2) Premier's Seventh Amendment rights were not violated. None of these arguments individually warrant a new trial, nor is Premier's argument, as a whole, greater than the sum of its parts. Its motion is therefore denied. In the Plaintiff's motion seeking an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and a service award, the parties' positions yield two drastically different values and two very different outcomes for the Class's recovery. Under the Plaintiff's model, the Class would retain most or all of the $12.89 million judgment, and Premier would be obligated to pay an additional $6.8 million award of fees and expenses to the Plaintiff's counsel directly. By contrast, the Defendant's model would result in the Plaintiff's counsel receiving roughly $3.5 million less and, since the award would be drawn from the judgment, the Class itself would bear this cost and receive roughly $9.69 million. Judge Seeborg denies the Plaintiff's request for attorney fees, without prejudice, holding that the declarations submitted by her counsel are "insufficient" to conduct a fulsome lodestar analysis, as they lack contemporaneous time records. He directs the Plaintiff to refile its motion with contemporaneous time records. In addition to attorney fees, the Plaintiff seeks $1,133,794.77 in reimbursed expenses. Given that the Plaintiff will be afforded the opportunity to submit a more detailed request for attorney fees, she will likewise be given the opportunity to refile the motion with more detailed expense documentation. The motion is therefore denied with respect to expenses, without prejudice. Finally, the Plaintiff requests a $25,000 service award for Ms. Montera. The Defendant does not contest the award, and the award is both comparable to similar awards in this District and reasonable considering her experience participating in this case. The motion is therefore granted with respect to the service award, with the award to be paid from the judgment. For these reasons, Judge Seeborg denies the Defendant's renewed motion for JMOL and its motion for new trial. He grants the Plaintiff's motion only with respect to the request for a service award for Ms. Montera. It is denied in all other respects, without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y42rce5c from Leagle.com. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Donald Eves, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Case No. 220301730 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04112 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH 1801 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6633 Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - John P. Goodrich, Esq. 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 261-4663 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway, Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 232-6300 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com The Defendant is represented by: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl New York, NY 10036-7703 Phone: (212) 389-5000 Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond, et al., File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all others situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3): Progressive Advance Class: "All person who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progresive Advance Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resdent who, from October 12, 2017 through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation was based a "dual source"valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon the Project Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value;" and Progressive Specialty Class: "All person who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progresive Specialty Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resdent who, from October 12, 2017 through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation was based a "dual source"valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon the Project Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; 3. appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel; and 4. directing the Parties to submit a Joint Notice Plan – or, if they are unable to agree, competing proposed Notice Plans -- within 14 days of the entry of the Order certifying the Class. Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs motion to certify class dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eGLygY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Amy L. Judkins, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Tiffany Oldham, Esq. Jake G. Windley, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com toldham@cbplaw.com jwindley@cbplaw.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate that the briefing schedule and hearing date for Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification be modified as follows: Deadline Current Proposed Date Date -- Last Day to File a Motion Sept. 9, 2022 Jan. 6, 2023 to Add Parties or Amend Pleadings: -- Last Day to File a Motion Jan. 20, 2023 May 19, 2023 for Class Certification: -- Last Day to File an Feb. 21, 2023 June 20, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: -- Last Day to File a Reply March 14, 2023 July 11, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification: -- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 30, 2023 Oct. 30, 2023 -- Last Day to File Motions July 14, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 (Excluding Daubert Motions and all other Motions in Limine): -- Last Day to Serve Initial July 14, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 Expert Reports: -- Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Aug. 11, 2023 Dec. 22, 2023 Expert Reports: -- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 8, 2023 Jan. 19, 2024 -- Last Day to Conduct Sept. 1, 2023 Jan. 5, 2024 Settlement Proceedings -- Last Day to File Feb. 2, 2024 May 31, 2024 Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions -- Final Pretrial March 1, 2024 June 28, 2024 Conference: RCM is a provider of business and technology solutions designed to enhance and maximize the operational performance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F0lFDt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com - and - Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 310.553.5583 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com The Defendants are represented by Martha J. Keon, Bar No. 213771 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19072 Telephone: (267) 402-3050 Facsimile: (267) 402-3131 E-mail: mkeon@littler.com RESEARCH ENHANCED: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Research Enhanced Design + Development, Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Research Enhanced Design + Development, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08676 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Research Enhanced Design + Development Inc provides catering services. The Company offers bars, chocolate, peanut butter, oatmeal, and brown rice..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (646) 417-8424 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com RITE AID: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) securities between April 14, 2022 and September 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until December 19, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rite Aid class action lawsuit. Captioned Page v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 22-cv-04201 (E.D. Pa.), the Rite Aid class action lawsuit charges Rite Aid 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 Rite Aid class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-rite-aid-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-rad.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: Rite Aid operates through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid's Pharmacy Services segment provides an integrated suite of pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") offerings through, among other things, Rite Aid's Elixir subsidiary, including technology solutions, mail delivery services, specialty pharmacy, network and rebate administration, claims adjudication, and pharmacy discount programs. The Rite Aid class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) despite representations to the contrary, the number of new members (i.e., "lives") that the Elixir PBM services business was adding during the selling season ending on January 1, 2023 was in material decline; and (ii) Rite Aid was likely to recognize a significant charge for the impairment of goodwill related to Elixir due to a decrease in "lives" covered by Elixir's PBM services business. On September 29, 2022, Rite Aid announced a $252.2 million charge for the impairment of goodwill related to Rite Aid's Elixir subsidiary. On an earnings call held later in the day, Rite Aid's CFO, defendant Matt Schroeder, explained that the large impairment charge was related to Elixir based on "an update to our estimate of lives for 2023 based on the latest selling season," and that Rite Aid "expected[ed] lives to go down." On this news, Rite Aid's stock price fell by more than 28.02%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Rite Aid securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ride Aid class action lawsuit. 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 Rite Aid class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Rite Aid class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Rite Aid class action lawsuit.[GN] RUDYS MUSIC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rudys Music Soho, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rudys Music Soho, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06135 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rudys Music Soho -- https://rudysmusic.com/ -- is a musical instrument store specializing in vintage, new & pre-owned acoustic, electric & bass guitars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com S & P MINI: Faces Paulino Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS BELLO PAULINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & P MINI MARKET CORP. (D/B/A S & P MINI MARKET CORP.) and AMANTINO VEGA ROSARIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08724 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a deli man at S & P Mini Market from approximately 2012 until January 2021. S & P Mini Market Corp. operates a deli located in the Melrose section of the Bronx in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 S1 SECURITY GROUP: Mendiburt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Yainier E. Mendiburt and other similarly-situated individuals v. S1 SECURITY GROUP INC, and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Therefore, during the relevant period of time, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff never agreed with the lack of payment for overtime hours, and he complained multiple times about unpaid overtime hours to his superiors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had duties as a security officer. S1 SECURITY GROUP is a Florida corporation that provides security services to businesses, residential communities, construction sites, retailers, and related security services such as executive bodyguard protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SCENARIO COCKRAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Nese Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters Final Judgment in the lawsuit entitled ERICA NESE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SCENARIO COCKRAM USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00814-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.). The Action has been settled pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and the Court has entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims. Judgment is entered on the First Amended Complaint filed on June 2, 2021. All of the Plaintiff's and the Settlement Class Members' claims that are Released Claims or the Plaintiff's Released Claims are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without fees (including attorneys' fees) or costs to any party, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and Order Granting Final Approval of Final. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have released the Released Claims as against the Released Parties, and are permanently barred from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in (as class members or otherwise) any action in any jurisdiction based on any of the Released Claims. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, consummation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the releases contained therein. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Class Members will promptly dismiss with prejudice all Released Claims brought by any Settlement Class Member in any jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uwnrjyh from Leagle.com. SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Wins Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCRIBE OPCO, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-2945-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order certifying a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act of 1988 (WARN) Nationwide Class as follows: "All persons employed by Defendant, who worked at one of Defendant's facilities in Florida or , which employed 50 or more full-time employees, excluding part-time employees (as defined under the WARN Act) (the "Facilities"), who were laid off or furloughed without cause on their part, on or about March 25, 2020, or within thirty days of that date or thereafter as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, a mass layoff (as defined by the WARN Act) at the Facilities which lasted longer than six months, who not timely opt-out of the class, but excluding individuals who, according to Defendant's records, declined reinstatement." -- The Plaintiff Eric Jones's Motion for Class Certification is granted as to the nationwide class definition included in Jones's second amended complaint. -- The Plaintiff Eric Jones is appointed as lead plaintiff and class representative. -- Brandon J. Hill, Esq. and Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. are appointed as co-lead class counsel. -- Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a identification joint of notice class that (1) describes members and their the contact information; (2) describes the method of disseminating class notice; and -- Prior to filing the joint notice, the directed to meet and confer and agree to the extent possible on these issues. To the extent the parties cannot agree, their disagreement should be described, along with short legal briefing, in the joint notice. In short, Jones has satisfied all of Rule 23's requirements and the Court will certify the nationwide class as defined in the reply to the Motion, the Court says. Jones initiated this putative class action against Scribe -- his former employer -- on December 9, 2020. Subsequently, after a stay of the case, Jones filed an amended complaint on December 6, 2021, asserting a claim for violation of the WARN Act. After his Motion for Certification was fully briefed, Jones filed a second amended complaint asserting the same WARN Act claim but amending the class definition. Jones alleges he "was furloughed on March 26, 2020" after Scribe sent him and many other employees a memo on March 25, 2020, stating that they were being "laid off." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CTIDtk at no extra charge.[CC] SEISEIDOU AMERICA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seiseidou America, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seiseidou America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08675 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seiseidou America, Inc. -- https://seiseidou-usa.com/ -- seek, develop, and validate scalable economic models and new opportunities to innovate unique products.[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 SESEN BIO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Sesen Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the current report dated October 4, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2022, that on October 4, 2022, Sesen Bio, Inc. announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has set a final settlement approval hearing for the previously disclosed consolidated shareholder class action captioned "In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that the company disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 17, 2022. As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 29, 2022, the court issued an order on September 28, 2022, granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the Securities Litigation. Sesen Bio, Inc. is a clinical company based in Massachusetts. SHAKESTIR LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shakestir LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Shakestir LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08691 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ShakeStir -- https://www.shakestir.com/ -- provides bartenders and spirit professionals with an interactive online platform to search & connect with fellow bartenders in cities & countries around the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com SHAY HUGHES: Bartole Suit Tossed for Not Having Actionable Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, dismisses the case, MARCUS T. BARTOLE, Plaintiff v. SHAY HUGHES, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 2:22-CV-257-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), for failing to state any actionable claims. Mr. Bartole, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against his former attorney, Hughes, both individually and as an "organization/entity." He seeks to proceed on behalf of himself and a class of unnamed inmates whom he alleges were harmed by the Defendant. In a nutshell, Bartole believes that Hughes violated various professional responsibility and ethics rules, state statutes, the Constitution, and federal laws by providing ineffective assistance of counsel to the inmates confined at the Tippecanoe County Jail. He alleges that Hughes violated his oath under the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys. Hughes, in that vein, has allegedly defrauded the judicial system and the public by accepting tax dollars to represent clients in an unfit manner, claiming that he uses the Indiana Criminal Code and the state bond policy to detain his clients and obtain a "collective cash cow." Bartole claims that Hughes applies the law unequally to socio-economically disadvantaged sex offenders, like Bartole himself. He claims that Hughes has failed to file various motions on behalf of his clients that could have led to a reduction of bond or outright release -- instead, Hughes uses the law to "indefinitely confine/commit his clients" and pressure them to accept plea deals even when they are innocent. Mr. Bartole claims that Hughes merely collects the money awarded to him for being 'appointed' counsel and does no legitimate work/perform any duty. He also alleges that Hughes has conspired with various unnamed state officials to violate the constitutional rights of inmates. Mr. Bartole has sued Hughes in his individual capacity, as well as "Shay Hughes organization/entity." He seeks prospective monetary relief and prospective, declaratory and injunctive relief only under Federal law. He asks me to enjoin Hughes and his unnamed conspirators from enforcing policies, practices, or procedures that violate the Constitution. He also wants Hughes to be disbarred. As an initial matter, Judge Simon opines that Bartole will not be permitted to bring suit on behalf of other inmates as part of a class action lawsuit or otherwise. As an initial matter, Bartole will not be permitted to bring suit on behalf of other inmates as part of a class action lawsuit or otherwise. While Bartole may bring claims against Hughes on his own behalf, Judge Simon finds that this complaint doesn't state any. The overall gist is that Hughes' incompetent legal assistance has led to Bartole's "indefinite" imprisonment. However, Bartole's unhappiness with his representation doesn't support a viable constitutional violation in this context. Judge Simon concludes that the complaint does not state any claims. He says the usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile. However, courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where the amendment would be futile. For the reasons previously explained, such is the case here. Accordingly, Judge Simon dismisses the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A because the complaint does not state any actionable claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/muwzw3ex from Leagle.com. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Bashir Seeks Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAFEER BASHIR, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22SMCV01886 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2022) is a Private Attorney General Action complaint, pursuant to the California Labor Code, brought by the Plaintiff arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices. The Plaintiff brings this suit over the Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; and failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of sales associate on April 15, 2022 until May 3, 2022. Sherwood Management Co., Inc. retails jewelry for men and women serving customers in the State of California.[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 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com SNAP INC: Deadline for Residents to Submit Claims Set Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you're an Illinois resident and have used Snapchat at any point since November 2015, you're eligible to submit a claim as part of a multi-million dollar class-action settlement against the social media app. However, the clock is ticking for Illinoisans to get their piece of the pie, with the deadline coming up on Nov. 5. The suit alleges that users' biometric data was collected without their consent via the "Lenses" and "Filters" features, violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act prohibits private sector companies and institutions from collecting biometric data from unsuspecting citizens in the state or online, no matter where the business is based. Data cannot be sold, transferred or traded. Unlike any other state, citizens can sue for alleged violations, which has sparked hundreds of David-and-Goliath legal battles against some of the world's most powerful companies. If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by the number of people affected and days involved. No state regulatory agency is involved in enforcement. At the center of the allegations is Snapchat's Lenses features, which allows users to take a "Snap," and then select a particular lens and modify their facial features with special effects, according to court documents. The lawsuit claims Lenses involves the use of technology to create a face scan and "creating, obtaining and storing" a user's unique biometric identifiers. The feature obtained the plaintiffs' biometric information without obtaining informed written consent each time it scanned their faces, the suit alleges. The lawsuit, filed in May, is similar to another recent class-action lawsuit specific to Illinois Facebook users. In the Facebook settlement, more than one million Illinois Facebook users began receiving checks following a $650 million settlement in a class-action suit alleging it violated residents' rights by collecting and storing digital scans of their faces without permission. Microsoft, Amazon and Google are among the companies that have also been accused of violations. How Much is the Settlement For? A $35 million settlement has been reached in the case, though that amount still needs to go through a final approval hearing, which is scheduled for November. Snapchat Inc.'s settlement was reached after a court did not find in favor of either the company nor the plaintiffs, meaning the social media platform did not admit fault. "Snap continues to vehemently deny that Lenses violate BIPA, which was designed to require notice and consent before collecting biometric information used to identify people," a Snap spokesperson told NBC 5 in a statement. "We deeply value the privacy of our community, and Snapchat Lenses do not collect biometric data that can be used to identify a specific person, or engage in facial identification. For example, Lenses can be used to identify an eye or a nose as being part of a face, but cannot identify an eye or a nose as belonging to any specific person. Moreover, even the limited data that is used to power Lenses is never sent to Snap's servers - the data never leaves the user's mobile device. And while we are confident that Lenses do not violate BIPA, out of an abundance of caution and as a testament to our commitment to user privacy, earlier this year we rolled out an in-app consent notice for Snapchatters in Illinois." Are You Eligible to File a Claim? According to the settlement website, any Illinois resident who used Snapchat Lenses or Filters between Nov. 17, 2015, and now is eligible to submit a claim. Since BIPA is an Illinois law, it only applies to state residents. How Do You Submit a Claim? When is the Deadline? The deadline for eligible residents to submit their claims is currently Nov. 5, according to a website dedicated to the settlement.[GN] SONUS NETWORKS: Misleads Investors on Sales Outlook, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Barash at shareholders adequately alleged that Sonus Networks Inc. and some of its executives committed securities fraud related to sales projections, a federal court said more than three years after the company asked it to toss the proposed class action. Plaintiffs Guiseppe Veleno, Gary Williams, and Ron Miller plausibly alleged the defendants had the necessary state of mind, and so the investors can advance their claims against the technology company and three of its executives, Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. said for the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.[GN] SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Dismissal of Luo Suit Due Nov. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE CHUNG LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOSEPH W. TURGEON, KURT A. GUSTAFSON, FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, M.D., and THOMAS J. RIGA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), Judge Christina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada enters an order regarding briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On Sept. 26, 2022, Lead Plaintiff ITG filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("ACCAC") which differs substantially from the prior complaint. Among other differences, the ACCAC: (1) is brought by a new plaintiff, ITG; (2) is more than twice the length of the prior complaint; (3) has added allegations concerning a different drug candidate, Poziotinib; (4) posits a different class period than the prior complaint; and (5) has added a new individual defendant, Spectrum Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Riga. The Defendants have reviewed the ACCAC and intend to file a motion to dismiss it (the "MTD"). The Parties have met and conferred and, subject to Court approval, agree that an extended briefing schedule is appropriate for the MTD given the new allegations in the ACCAC, the complexity of the anticipated briefing, and the upcoming holiday season. Specifically, they agree to the following deadlines for the MTD briefing schedule: a. By Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendants will file the MTD, b. By Jan. 27, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff will file an opposition to the MTD, and c. By Feb. 27, 2023, the Defendant will file a reply in support of the MTD. In her Oct. 4, 2022 Minute Order, Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler ordered that stipulations and proposed orders by the Parties concerning the response date to the ACCAC and related briefing of the MTD be bifurcated and submitted separately between Judge Weksler and the District Court, respectfully. Pursuant to the Parties' agreement and Judge Weksler's Oct. 4, 2022 Minute Order, on Oct. 7, 2022, the Defendants submitted a separate Stipulation and Proposed Order requesting that Defendants' deadline to file the MTD be set for Nov. 30, 2022. Judge Weksler adopted the proposed order and set the deadline for the MTD as Nov. 30, 2022. Pursuant to Judge Weksler's Oct. 4, 2022 Minute Order, the Parties request that the District Court adopts the other two deadlines included in their agreement. They therefore stipulated and agreed that (i) the Lead Plaintiff may file an opposition to the MTD by Jan. 27, 2023; and (ii) the Defendants may file a reply brief in further support of the MTD by Feb. 27, 2023. Judge Silva so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dhxrsb4 from Leagle.com. PAUL HASTINGS LLP, CHRISTOPHER H. McGRATH -- chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com -- Costa Mesa, California, Counsel for All Defendants. PISANELLI BICE PLLC, JORDAN T. SMITH -- jts@pisanellibice.com -- Las Vegas, Nevada, Counsel for Defendant Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SPRUCE HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Spruce House, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Spruce House, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08699 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Spruce -- https://www.thespruce.com/ -- offer practical, real-life tips and inspiration to help make the best home.[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 STATE FARM GENERAL: Pearce Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm General Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Keith Pearce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, Case No. 9:22-cv-81572-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. State Farm General Insurance Company -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides property liability insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Michael Picton Rudd, Esq. RUDD & DIAMOND PA 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Presidential Circle Suite 165S Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (305) 379-5006 Fax: (305) 960-2005 Email: mrudd@rudddiamond.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bids to Dismiss Hickman Suit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AIMEE HICKMAN, JARED HICKMAN, WILLIAM TREASURER, KELLY DROGOWSKI, FRANK DROGOWSKI, JOHN TAITANO, RICHARD PALERMO, LORI WOIWODE, SHAWN WOIWODE, CAROLYN PATOL, CASSANDRA SEMBER, AND STEVEN SEMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION f/k/a FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02100-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey enters an Opinion: a. granting in part and denying in part Subaru of America, Inc.'s ("SOA") motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; b. granting in part and denying in part Subaru Corp.'s ("SBR") motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; and c. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice in its entirety. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action suit against SOA and SBR alleging that since, 2019, Subaru has manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ascent model of their cars with dangerous and defective transmissions. The transmission in question, the TR690 transmission, a type of Continuously Variable Transmission ("CVT"), allegedly "causes hesitation, jerking, shuddering, lurching, squeaking, whining, or other loud noises, delays in acceleration, inconsistent shifting, stalling, and a loss of power or ability to accelerate at all." The Plaintiffs claim that when they purchased or leased their vehicles, they did so pursuant to an express warranty covering their cars for "defects in materials or workmanship" over a period of "three-year/36,000-miles." They contend that Subaru was aware of these defects at least as early as 2011. The Plaintiffs contend that Subaru has recalled the Ascent multiple times for various issues, including some related to the transmission, but has failed to fix the central issue with the transmission. They further allege that Subaru has known for quite some time that the transmission defect exists but that has refused to sufficiently rectify it, going so far as to conceal ongoing issues to prospective customers and Ascent owners. The Plaintiffs state that they will seek to certify a nationwide class and several subclasses. The subclasses include ones for (i) Maryland, (ii) North Carolina, (iii) Pennsylvania, (iv) California, (v) Song-Beverly, (vi) Massachusetts, (vi) North Dakota, (vii) New York, and (vii) Virginia. The Plaintiffs originally filed a complaint on Feb. 8, 2021. SOA moved to dismiss that complaint on April 12, 2021. However, on May 14, 2021, before briefing was completed on that motion, the Plaintiffs superseded that complaint with an amended complaint. SSOA moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 11, 2021 and SBR moved to dismiss on Dec. 3, 2021. During the course of briefing, on Jan. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of a Part 573 Safety Recall Report dated Dec. 9, 2021, submitted by SOA to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Then, on Feb. 4, 2022, the parties proposed a further briefing schedule to address whether the Recall Report mooted any or all of the claims in the Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed on March 18, 2022. As a threshold matter prior to addressing any of the parties' substantive arguments, Judge Hillman considers whether the Dec. 9, 2021 Recall of certain Subaru vehicles moots the action or necessitates the filing of an amended complaint to address the Recall. He holds that it does not. Because he finds that this matter is not prudentially moot and because he finds that he can fairly assess the other arguments in the Motions to Dismiss notwithstanding the Recall, he does not require the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on this basis. SOA first argues that Count I, for violation of the express warranty, must be dismissed because the express warranty disclaims design defects and SOA argues that the Amended Complaint only alleges a design defect with the transmission. Judge Hillman disagrees holding that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that these defects could be at least partly caused by a manufacturing defect. The fact that their allegations could be construed as design defects as well, or in the alternative, is insufficient to defeat these claims at the motion to dismiss stage. SOA next contends that Treasurer has not stated a claim for a breach of an express or implied warranty. SBR similarly contends that Treasurer has not stated a claim for breach of implied warranty against it. Judge Hillman agrees with the Defendants on this argument. He opines that the Treasurer's claim does not meet the plausibility pleading standard. The omission of clear allegations that the Treasurer cannot use his car for its ordinary purpose is fatal to his implied warranty claim. The Defendants generally make arguments that are duplicative of the arguments that they made with respect to Treasurer on the claim of breach of implied warranty. First, they argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that their cars were not reasonably fit for the general purposes for which they were sold. Second, SOA argues that in addition to Treasurer, Taitano, Patol, and the Sembers lack the necessary privity to assert their claims. SBR makes the same argument but only for Treasurer, Patol and Sembers. Judge Hillman disagrees. He is not prepared to hold at the motion to dismiss stage that a car with a shuddering and malfunctioning transmission that causes issues steering and merging, which each of the named Plaintiffs alleges they have in their cars, is a safe and reliable car. Therefore, other than for Treasurer, he declines to dismiss implied warranty claims at this stage in the litigation. The Defendants next argue that the laws of Virginia, California, and North Carolina require pre-suit notice in order to state claims of express or implied warranty. Judge Hillman need not consider this argument as it relates to North Carolina law, as he has already stated that he will dismiss Treasurer's warranty claims. Since New Jersey law does not require pre-suit notice, he declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' warranty claims on those grounds. SOA alternatively argues that Taitano has not alleged that he presented the car for a reasonable number of repairs. Judge Hillman again disagrees. He finds that Taitano alleges that he brought his car to the dealership for repair three times to fix the transmission issue. The fact that the dealership tried to remedy the car's issues by replacing the battery instead of the transmission, does not change the Court's view. He thus declines to dismiss Count VII. The then Defendants mount several arguments to defeat the Plaintiffs' claims sounding in fraud. They argue that the Plaintiffs have not plead with particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) an affirmative misrepresentation or fraud by omission. They also argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants had a duty to disclose and that the economic loss doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Hillman disagrees. Among other things, he holds that the claim against SBR is more tenuous given that it is SOA's foreign parent company, but the Plaintiffs' allegations that SBR directed advertisements and written materials related to the Ascent, convinces the him that dismissal of the claim against SBR for misrepresentations made in New York would be premature at this stage. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' request that the Court orders them to issue a voluntary recall for the Subaru Ascent is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. Section 30101, et seq. Judge Hillman declines to limit the Plaintiffs' potential remedies at this stage. He finds no clear controlling precedent on the preemptive effect of the Safety Act on state law remedies. In light of the other remedies sought by the Plaintiffs, he declines to opine on this fairly narrow preemption issue at the motion to dismiss. Conversely, Judge Hillman grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for future injunctive relief based on false advertising because the Plaintiffs are past Subaru customers and have not plausibly pled that they are likely to purchase a Subaru in the future. Finally, of the Counts dismissed, Judge Hillman opines it is possible that Treasurer can plead more particular facts as to why he continues to suffer harm so as to make out a plausible warranty claims. As it relates to the effect of the Recall instituted after the filing of the Amended Complaint, he allows, but not require as the Defendants request, the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing that issue if they so choose. The Plaintiffs are given 30 days from the date of the Order accompanying the Opinion to file an amended complaint with respect to those two issues. However, Judge Hillman denies leave to amend the claim for injunctive relief for future false advertising on the grounds that such a claim would be futile. An appropriate Order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5t2frbbt from Leagle.com. ABIGAIL GERTNER -- agertner@bm.net -- NATALIE LESSER -- nlesser@bm.net -- RUSSELL D. PAUL -- rpaul@bm.net -- AMEY J. PARK -- apark@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA, On behalf of the Plaintiffs. NEAL D. WALTERS -- waltersn@ballardspahr.com -- CASEY GENE WATKINS -- watkinsc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP, MT. LAUREL, NJ, On behalf of SOA and SBR. SUGAR BEETS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Beets Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sugar Beets Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06176 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sugar Beets Inc. -- http://sugarbeetrestaurant.com/is an airy, brick-&-wood-clad eatery offering an all-day cafe menu with burgers, eggs & comfort fare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com T-MOBILE USA: Taveras Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments -------------------------------------------------------- Furcy Taveras, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-08731 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers. The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 2018 until February 2020. T-MOBILE USA INC. is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 TA OPERATING: Peters Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jolene Sabrowsky Peters, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA Operating, LLC doing business as: TravelCenters of America Inc., TravelCenters of America, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216864 was removed from the Superior Court of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 14, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01831-AB-SHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. TA Operating LLC, doing business as TravelCenters of America -- http://www.ta-petro.com/owns and operates gasoline service stations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Aram Boyadjian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: ABoyadjian@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Mia D. Farber, Esq. Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Jackson Lewis PC 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and - Semarnpreet Kaur, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: semarnpreet.kaur@jacksonlewis.com TARGET CORP: Bayne's Breach of Implied Warranty Claim Proceeds -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MIEKE BAYNE and ALYSSA HART, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05938 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part its Motion to Dismiss. Hence, as Judge Vyskocil previously held, the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim survives. On Sept. 23, 2022, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant now moves for reconsideration of that decision to the extent it did not dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim. Specifically, it argues that the Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiffs' complaint satisfied the notice requirement under New York law. Judge Vyskocil finds the Defendant's motion entirely without merit. She says the Defendant does not identify any intervening change of the law, introduce any new evidence, or reveal any clear errors. It merely rehashes old arguments, quibbles with the Court's interpretation of New York law. And while the Defendant may be disappointed with the Court's analysis, a motion for reconsideration is an improper outlet for its dismay. The breach of implied warranty claim, thus, survives. The only question now is whether the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over this claim given that all other claims (including the one federal claim) have been dismissed. The parties have taken the position, despite the fact that the Amended Complaint had not previously relied on diversity jurisdiction, that subject matter jurisdiction still exists based on the Class Action Fairness Act. Judge Vyskocil agrees. She says this is a case in which at least one member of the putative class action is diverse from the defendant; the matter in controversy plausibly exceeds the sum of $5 million; and the number of members of the proposed class exceeds 100. Therefore, the Court may and does assert jurisdiction over the breach of implied warranty claim. The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to close the Motion at ECF No. 55. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4r3ucce from Leagle.com. TATTOOED CHEF: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tattooed Chef, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTCF) resulting from allegations that Tattooed Chef may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Tattooed Chef securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9201 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 12, 2022, after market hours, Tattooed Chef announced that it would restate its quarterly and annual financial statements for 2021, and for its first and second quarterly financial periods of 2022. Tattooed Chef stated these financial statements should no longer be relied upon. Tattooed Chef stated the restatements are because it was notified earlier this month by its former independent registered public accounting firm, BDO USA LLP, that "the company incorrectly recorded expenses related to a multi-vendor mailer program with a large customer as operating expenses rather than reduction of revenue, and expenses for advertising placement by a marketing services firm on a straight-line basis over the life of the contract rather than when the services were actually rendered." On this news, Tattooed Chef share prices dropped by $0.44, or approximately 9.8%, to open on October 13, 2022 at $4.05 per share. 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 litigate securities class actions. 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.[GN] TDI LLC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TDI, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TDI, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00776 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TDI LLC -- http://www.tdiholdings.com/-- is the privately owned umbrella organization for MSP Design Group, Dynamic Team Sports, and Tactical Distributors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Proceedings Stayed Pending Transfer Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELISSA MORRISON, an individual; KELLIE VALENCIA, an individual; and KARIE KUEHL, an individual, Plaintiffs v. TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC., f/k/a Teva Global Respiratory Research, LLC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ALZA CORPORATION; JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Research & Development, LLC; ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/k/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; JANSSEN ORTHO LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; DR. C. LOWELL PARSONS, MD, an individual; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1074-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion to Stay all proceedings pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on transfer to an MDL court. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego on June 15, 2022. They allege that Elmiron, a prescription drug marketed to treat Interstitial Cystitis and manufactured by some of the named Defendants, caused them "severe physical and emotional injuries as well as severe symptoms." They also allege that they were given inadequate warnings regarding the risk of these injuries. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and all other available remedies and damages allowed by law. The Defendants removed this action to federal court on July 22, 2022 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On July 22, 2022, they filed a Notice of Related Cases stating that cases involving "retinal injuries associated with the use of Elmiron" had been centralized in an MDL proceeding the District of New Jersey. They stated that on July 25, 2022 they provided notice to the MDL Panel of this "tag-along" action. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued a Conditional Transfer Order, which the Plaintiffs opposed and gave notice of a Motion to Vacate. The JPML issued a briefing schedule on the Motion to Vacate and ordered that all briefing be complete by Sept. 21, 2022. On Aug. 18, 2022, the Defendants filed this Motion to Stay all proceedings pending a ruling by the JPML. The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on Sept. 30, 2022, and the Defendants filed a Reply on Oct. 7, 2022. A hearing was set for Oct. 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on Aug. 19, 2022. A briefing schedule was provided: any Opposition to the Motion for Remand is due on Nov. 1, 2022; any Reply is due on Nov. 15, 2022; and a hearing is currently scheduled for Dec. 2, 2022. Courts consider three factors in deciding whether to stay proceedings: (1) any potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are later consolidated in an MDL. Judge Curiel finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting a stay pending the JPML's decision. He says (i) potential prejudice to the Plaintiffs by granting a stay is limited; (ii) the burden on the Defendants if this case is not stayed pending the JPML decision is not tremendous; (iii) granting a motion to stay proceedings pending a decision by the JPML is a practice courts routinely follow because of the judicial resources that are saved; and (iv) a stay will also prevent the possibility that conflicting rulings are issued by this Court and the transferee court. In sum, the risk of inconsistent rulings and the judicial resources that will be conserved outweigh any potential prejudice Plaintiffs might suffer as a result of a short, not indefinite stay. Therefore, Judge Curiel grants the Defendants' Motion to Stay. The hearing on this Motion, scheduled for Oct. 21, 2022, and the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, currently scheduled for Dec. 2, 2022, are vacated. The Parties are ordered to file a joint status report apprising the Court of the JPML's decision within 30 days of the JPML's Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/25ffxztf from Leagle.com. TOV FURNITURE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TOV Furniture, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TOV Furniture, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08658 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TOV Furniture -- https://tovfurniture.com/ -- is an e-commerce marketplace that offers a diverse selection of handcrafted and personalized design furniture.[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 TP-LINK USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TP-Link USA Corporation. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. TP-Link USA Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08883 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TP-Link -- https://www.tp-link.com/us/ -- is an industry-leading provider of wireless networking products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal TRUE VALUE COMPANY: Calvert Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Value Company, L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Calvert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. True Value Company, L.L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-01461-WSH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The True Value Company -- https://www.truevaluecompany.com/ -- is an American wholesaler with over 4,500 independent retail locations worldwide.[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: Gary@lcllp.com TWIN Z COMPANY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin Z Company, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Twin Z Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08664 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Twin Z Pillow -- https://twinznursingpillow.com/ -- is a new twin nursing and feeding pillow for parents of twins.[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 U.S. BANK: Court Trims Claims in Pacific Life's Amended Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 555 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enters Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining the reasons for his decision granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its entirety. The action arises from the Plaintiffs' purchase of more than $900 million worth of residential mortgage-backed securities certificates, for which Defendants U.S. Bank National Association and Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA") served as trustees. Residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") are financial products collateralized by residential mortgages. The depositor conveys the loan pool to a "trustee," which holds the loan pool in trust under a "pooling and servicing agreement" ("PSA"). Pursuant to the PSA for each RMBS trust, a "servicer" is appointed to manage the collection of payments on the underlying mortgage loans, monitor delinquent borrowers, foreclose on defaulted loans, monitor compliance with representations and warranties regarding loan origination, track mortgage documentation, and manage and sell foreclosed properties. The case concerns 32 RMBS trusts created between 2004 and 2007 (the "Covered Trusts"). Ten of these trusts were sponsored by Washington Mutual Bank or Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp (the "WaMu Trusts"). Eight trusts were sponsored by CitiMortgage, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., or CSE Mortgage LLC. Five trusts were sponsored by J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp. or Chase Home Finance LLC.5 Two trusts were sponsored by DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. The following entities each sponsored one of the remaining seven trusts: Bank of America, N.A.; EMC Mortgage Corp.; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co. (the "Goldman Trust"); UBS Real Estate Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the "Morgan Stanley Trust"); Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Pacific Life Insurance Co. is an insurance company incorporated in Nebraska with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California. Pacific Life & Annuity Co. is an insurance company incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California. The Plaintiffs purchased RMBS certificates issued by the Covered Trusts with an original face value of approximately $900 million. They sold approximately $400 million worth of the certificates between 2011 and 2014 but kept the rest. U.S. Bank is the current trustee for all 32 Covered Trusts. BOA served as the trustee for 11 of the Covered Trusts -- the 10 WaMu Trusts and the Morgan Stanley Trust -- from October 2007 to December 2010, at which point U.S. Bank succeeded BOA as trustee for those trusts. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants breached their trustee duties under the PSAs in several ways. They allege that (i) even before any Event of Default had occurred, the Defendants breached their duties under the PSAs by not providing adequate notice "when Sponsors or Originators breached representation and warranty provisions" in the PSAs; (ii) the Defendants violated their pre-Event of Default duties under the PSAs by not remedying defects in the mortgage files in their possession; (iii) the Defendants have repeatedly breached their duty to prudently exercise available remedies after Events of Default throughout the life of the Covered Trusts; (iv) the Defendants made materially false statements in Form 10-K certifications and remittance reports provided to certificate holders pursuant to Regulation AB; (v) the Defendants actions generally deprived them of the fruits of their contracts in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (vi) the Defendants had numerous conflicts of interest that violated their duties as RMBS trustees. As a result of the Defendants' alleged breaches of their trustee duties, the Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered over $150 million in damages. They contend that, if Defendants had, inter alia, required Sponsors and Originators to repurchase defective loans that were contained in the Covered Trusts: (1) the RMBS certificates still in their possession would have retained their market value; and (2) as to the certificates the Plaintiffs have sold, they would have been able to sell those certificates at a higher price. The Plaintiffs filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, but the case was later transferred to this District in the interest of convenience and fairness. Thereafter, they filed an Amended Complaint, which asserts seven claims against the Defendants. In their first claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the TIA by not investigating and notifying them of "defaults" related to the Covered Trusts, by not prudently exercising their powers as trustees following those defaults, and by impairing the ability of the trusts, and consequently them, to receive payment in connection with defective mortgage loans. In their second claim, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants breached their obligations under the PSAs and, in doing so, harmed them, who are "intended third party beneficiaries under the PSAs. In their third, fourth, and fifth claims, they assert that the Defendants committed tortious conduct in connection with their oversight of the Covered Trusts. In their sixth claim, they assert that the Defendants violated New York's Streit Act. Finally, they allege that, by engaging in the conduct described in the rest of the Amended Complaint, the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing under the PSAs. U.S. Bank and BOA moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in a previous order, Judge Gardephe granted in part and denied in part their motions. The purpose of his memorandum opinion and order is to explain his reasoning. Judge Gardephe dismisses as untimely (i) the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against U.S. Bank with respect to JPALT 2006-S2; (ii) their claims against BOA with respect to the Morgan Stanley Trust; and (iii) all of their claims against BOA with respect to WMALT 2007-4. Judge Gardephe dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against (i) U.S. Bank to the extent they are based on an alleged failure to provide notice of representation and warranty breaches related to JPALT 2006-S2, JPALT 2006-S4, and JPMMT 2007-A4; (ii) both Defendants to the extent they are based on their failure to enforce repurchase rights prior to an Event of Default for the WaMu Trusts; (iii) both Defendants to the extent that they are based on their failure to enforce repurchase rights prior to an Event of Default for the nine trusts identified in Dkt. No. 128-18; (iv) both Defendants to the extent they are based on a duty to take physical possession of mortgage files; (v) U.S. Bank to the extent they are based on U.S. Bank's failure to review mortgage files and prepare exception reports related to the 15 trusts identified in Dkt. Nos. 128-20 and 128-21. Judge Gardephe also dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against (i) both Defendants to the extent they are based on a duty to enforce repurchase rights for loans with defective documentation held in the 21 trusts identified in Dkt. No. 128-23; (ii) both Defendants to the extent they are based on their failure to provide notice of pre-Event of Default servicer and master servicer breaches related to the 22 trusts listed in Dkt. No. 128-26; and (iv) both Defendants are dismissed to the extent they are based on alleged violations of Regulation AB -- except for those claims related to BAFC 2007-D, ARMT 2005-10, CSFB 2004-8, and MSM 2006-7 that are not premised on the preparation of remittance reports. Judge Gardephe further dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims against both Defendants (i) for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (ii) brought under TTA Section 316(b); and (iii) brought under Section 126(1) of the Streit Act. He dismisses the Plaintiffs' tort claims against both Defendants to the extent that they are not premised on the Defendants' extra-contractual duties of performing ministerial acts with due care and avoiding conflicts of interest. In all other respects, Judge Gardephe denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8kkppr from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Court Enters Final Judgment in D'Amario Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JADE D'AMARIO and JOSHUA DUNN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03744-CS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Plaintiffs D'Amario and Dunn and the Defendant have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as to the Defendant upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. On June 3, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of "all students and former students who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made, tuition and fees for educational services to Defendant for the Spring 2020 Semester, and who remained enrolled as of March 1, 2020." Judge Seibel has considered the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement, as well as the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Incentive Awards, together with all exhibits thereto, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and their counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on Oct. 18, 2022, and the record in the Action. Judge Seibel finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects. The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated into the Final Judgment in full and will have the full force of an Order of the Court. Judge Seibel dismisses the Action, as identified in the Settlement Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice. She adjudges that the payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $1,133,333.33 is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. This award includes the Class Counsel's unreimbursed litigation costs and expenses. Such payment will be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Seibel also adjudges that the payment of incentive awards in the amount of $10,000 each to Ms. D'Amario and Mr. Dunn to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances of the case. Such payment will be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within 90 days of issuance will revert to the Defendant for the direct benefit of the students of The University of Tampa through the creation of a special student-focused scholarship fund administered by The University of Tampa. Except as otherwise set forth in the Order, the Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment for purposes of appeal, until the Effective Date the Court will retain jurisdiction over all matters relating to administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Seibel directs entry of the Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 based upon the Court's finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8c394u from Leagle.com. USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Epstein Class Suit With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC EPSTEIN, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. C22-684 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Class Action Complaint and Request for Judicial Notice. Mr. Epstein has filed suit individually and on behalf of a proposed class against his former auto insurer, Defendants USAA General Indemnity Co. (GIC) and its parent company, United Services Automobile Association (USAA). He claims that the Defendants have violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by forcing lower-ranking servicemembers to pay more for auto insurance than higher-ranking servicemembers. The Defendants move to dismiss all of the claims and to strike the request for equitable relief. They have also filed an unopposed Request for Judicial Notice that asks the Court to take judicial notice of a "U.S. Military Rank Insignia" page from the Department of Defense's website. The Court takes judicial notice of the page, though it does not affect the outcome of the Motion. USAA offers auto insurance to current and former servicemembers of the United States military. It writes auto insurance through four different insurers that operate under common management and control" which Epstein calls the "USAA Group." Two of the related insurers relevant to this action are: (1) USAA, and (2) GIC. USAA insures commissioned officers as well as senior non-commissioned officers in pay grades E-7 or higher along with veterans whose highest pay grade was E-7 or higher. And GIC insures enlisted personnel in pay grades E-6 or below along with veterans whose highest pay grade was E-6 or below. The Complaint refers to enlisted personnel at pay grades E-7 or higher as "Officers Policyholders" and those in pay grades E-1 through E-6 as "Enlisted Policyholders." As a former enlisted member of the Navy at a pay grade of E-1, Epstein qualified to obtain auto insurance from USAA Group. He obtained insurance through GIC from August 2020 to April 2022. He alleges that he would have paid roughly 20% less in premiums had he been insured through USAA and not GIC. Mr. Epstein pursues three claims: (1) violations of the WLAD on the basis of his "military status"; (2) violations of the CPA for engaging in "unfair" discrimination by charging higher premiums based on pay grade; and (3) violations of the CPA by failing to disclose to lower pay-grade servicemembers that they will be insured by GIC and that they will pay higher premiums than higher pay-grade servicemembers. Mr. Epstein seeks: (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief including but not limited to an order (i) requiring Defendants to use base rates and relativities that generate premiums that do not discriminate against Enlisted Policyholders and/or (ii) otherwise preventing the Defendants from continuing to charge discriminatorily high premium rates to Enlisted Policyholders; (3) disgorgement, restitution, or imposition of a constructive trust upon the ill-gotten gains derived by Defendants; (4) damages, which are at least equal to the amounts that they paid in excess of the amounts that Defendants charged to similarly situated Officer Policyholders; (5) treble damages under the CPA; and (6) attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other further relief the Court deems just. The Defendants move to dismiss all three of Epstein's claims on the theory that they are barred by the filed rate doctrine. Having considered the Complaint and the relief it seeks, Judge Pechman finds that Epstein's CPA and WLAD claims directly attack the reasonableness of OIC-approved rates and are barred by the filed rate doctrine. She is not convinced by the AG's letter or any additional arguments Epstein advances that there exists a carve-out to the filed rate doctrine for WLAD claims. Epstein also fails to cite any cases that have permitted WLAD claims to proceed that would otherwise be barred by the filed rate doctrine. Lastly, she is therefore unconvinced that she should hold off on her determination that the filed rate doctrine bars the claims. Judge Pechman, therefore, grants the Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the action with prejudice. She does not reach the Defendants' alternative arguments in support of dismissal or striking the equitable relief sought, as doing so is unnecessary to resolving the Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycx7zf4x from Leagle.com. VERVE LABS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Verve Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06173 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Verve Labs is a U.A.E.-based design studio that provides solutions for print and media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com VINNIE'S AUTO COLLISION: Guerrero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro J. Guerrero, Victor H. Sosa, and other similarly situated individuals v. Vinnie's Auto Collision Center, Inc., and Vincent Terdoslavich, individually, Case No. 8:22-cv-02351-SDM-MRM (M.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime under the United States laws, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were paid for an average of 72 hours weekly but at their regular rate. The Plaintiffs were not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but the Defendants could keep track of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiffs worked under the supervision of the business owner, Vincent Terdoslavich. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime hours at the rate of time and one half their regular rate for every hour they worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a collision repair technicians. Vinnie's Collision Center is an auto repair body center located in Sarasota, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VIVIANO CONSULTING: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viviano Consulting Services, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Viviano Consulting Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08665 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Viviano Consulting LLC is a real estate company.[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 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dismissal of Riley's Song-Beverly Claims Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment dismissing the Appellants' Song-Beverly Act claims in the lawsuits styled TIMOTHY G. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. LUKE G. SANWICK; KATHRYN SANWICK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. RICHARD V. ORTIZ; VIRGINIA TORRES ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. JULIA ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. BYRON CLENDENEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. SCOTT SALZER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. KENNETH J. COON; MARIA E. COON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-15882, 20-15884, 20-15885, 20-15886, 20-15887, 20-15889, 20-15890 (9th Cir.). These appeals arise from nationwide litigation related to emissions defeat devices installed in certain Volkswagen and Audi vehicles. The Appellants bought or leased these vehicles and opted out of related class action litigation to assert their claims individually. They appeal the district court's determination that they did not qualify for relief under the Song-Beverly Claims Act because the cars were "merchantable." They also contest the district court's rulings during and after the trial rejecting their California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims. They further challenge certain evidentiary rulings made by the district court. The Appellants finally challenge the district court judge's decision not to recuse himself. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the Appellants' Song-Beverly Act claims, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790 et seq., because the cars were merchantable and did not qualify for relief under the statute. The Ninth Circuit agrees. It has previously held that the affected cars "were still functional and safe to drive." Likewise in the present case, the district court properly granted summary judgment because the Appellants did not raise a genuine issue of material fact that the vehicles with the emissions defeat devices were not fit for providing transportation. The district court dismissed the Appellants' CLRA damages claims because it concluded that Volkswagen's offer for Appellants to rejoin the class action settlement was an "appropriate correction." The Appellants argue that this was error. The Ninth Circuit agrees. Volkswagen gave a class settlement offer that, inter alia, required the Appellants to waive all claims, not just those arising under the CLRA. The Ninth Circuit concludes that Volkswagen's correction offer was not "appropriate" because it barred the Appellants' ability to bring their other claims arising outside of the CLRA. The Appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by permitting and excluding certain evidence on damages based on the finding that there was a market value for the cars after the emissions defeat devices were discovered. They contend that this testimony showed that they were entitled to the full value of their vehicles at their time of purchase. The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring evidence that it was illegal to sell the vehicles at issue, nor in concluding that the vehicles with emissions defeat devices still had unmistakable market value. Indeed, Riley sold his vehicle for $10,000 in 2016 after the discovery of the emissions defeat device. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the Appellants' testimony regarding their own, subjective value of the cars. The Appellants then assert that the district court erred by excluding jury instructions on reliance damages under California Civil Instructions No. 1923. The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's formulation of jury instructions for abuse of discretion and review de novo whether the instructions accurately state the law. Because the Appellants did not provide a sufficient factual predicate to warrant giving an instruction on the theory of reliance damages, it finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the jury instructions. The Appellants also did not show that a reliance upon Volkswagen's fraud caused additional damages beyond the compensatory damages determined by the district court. The evidence and proceedings showed no differences in the costs incurred from owning a normal car as compared to owning a vehicle with the emissions defeat device. The Appellants also argue that they would have acted differently if they had known that the defeat devices were present. But they did not show any quantifiable damages incurred in reliance on the affected vehicles. Because the Appellants did not show that they incurred reliance damages, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in not instructing on reliance damages. The Appellants further contend that that the district court judge, Judge Breyer, should have recused himself because his opinions on the issues in this case were formed in the separate, yet related, class action proceedings held in multidistrict litigation. The Ninth Circuit rejects their claim, which it determine is entirely without merit. The knowledge Judge Breyer developed in the related Volkswagen litigation was gained through proper juristic proceedings. That does not require recusal. Further, the district judge's comments on the record show no predisposition toward one side or another in the case. Finally, to the extent that the Appellants argue recusal was required because of Judge Breyer's adverse rulings, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality recusal motion," and do not do so in the case. Lastly, Judge Breyer did not abuse his discretion in declining to refer the case because the affidavit was insufficient, and it was not timely filed. The Ninth Circuit rejects in full the contentions that Judge Breyer should have recused. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r73zr86 from Leagle.com. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Punitive Damages Calculations in Riley Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacates the district court's punitive damages calculations in the cases titled TIMOTHY G. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. LUKE G. SANWICK; KATHRYN SANWICK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. RICHARD V. ORTIZ; VIRGINIA TORRES ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. JULIA ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. BYRON CLENDENEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. SCOTT SALZER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. KENNETH J. COON; MARIA E. COON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-15882, 20-15884, 20-15885, 20-15886, 20-15887, 20-15889, 20-15890 (9th Cir.). These appeals stem from the nationwide Volkswagen litigation related to the emissions defeat devices installed in certain Volkswagen and Audi vehicles. The Appellants are plaintiffs who opted-out of the class action, preferring to pursue their claims individually ("opt-out Plaintiffs"). After a three-phase trial, the district court awarded the Appellants damages, but reduced the award of punitive damages to conform with constitutional standards established by the United States Supreme Court for punitive damages awards. The Appellants challenge the district court's punitive damages calculations. In 2015, researchers discovered that Volkswagen had installed emissions defeat devices in some of its vehicles. The vehicles with the defeat devices produced emissions up to 40 times the maximum permitted by the legal standard, except that the emissions were diminished when the vehicles were undergoing emissions testing. The district court found that there was no evidence at trial that the Plaintiffs suffered any personal injury resulting from the defeat devices in their cars, nor did they bring a personal injury claim. In a press release in 2019, the EPA said that the increased emissions did not present a safety hazard to those who owned and operated the affected vehicles. After the discovery of the defeat devices, the owners of affected cars filed thousands of lawsuits. These individual suits were sent to multi-district litigation, where the Plaintiffs received the option of opting-in to a class settlement based on the type of affected vehicle that they owned. The cases of the Plaintiffs who opted-in were consolidated into two classes for settlement, one for 2.0 liter vehicle owners and another for 3.0 liter vehicle owners. Appellants Timothy Riley, Luke and Kathryn Sanwick, Richard and Virginia Ortiz, Julia Robertson, Byron Clendenen, Scott Salzer, and Kenneth and Maria Coon, are individuals who bought or leased a vehicle with an emissions defeat device and opted-out of the class action settlements. They filed individual suits that were consolidated before the same judge who presided over the multidistrict litigation and class action settlements. The jury awarded four of the appellants various amounts in compensatory damages and $25,000 each in punitive damages. In a conscientious effort to comply with due process, the district court reduced the punitive damages award to exactly four times the amount of the compensatory damages suffered by each Plaintiff. The Appellants argue that the district court erred by holding that a punitive damages ratio calculation of four times the value of the compensatory damages award is the maximum punitive damages award permitted by the Constitution's Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit agrees there was error in determining this limit. It reviews the application of applicable constitutional guidelines de novo, citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003). The Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore established three guidelines governing whether punitive damage awards comply with due process: (1) the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by the claimant and his punitive damages; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages and any civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. On the factor of reprehensibility, the Ninth Circuit finds this is a paradigm case where high reprehensibility coupled with relatively low compensatory damages can support a higher multiplier for punitive damages consistent with due process. Turning to the proportionality issue, it applies to all the Appellants the lowest ratio selected by the jury -- an 8 to 1 ratio -- in determining the maximum punitive damages permitted. For the third guidepost, the Ninth Circuit holds this factor does not require it to reduce the single digit multiplier punitive damages determined by the jury. Because it holds that the district court erred in applying the Gore factors, the Ninth Circuit now considers what award of punitive damages comports with due process for each party. It concludes that the jury's multiple of eight times the actual compensatory damages award is constitutionally permissible because a multiplier greater than four is appropriate. It also concludes that it would be arbitrary and incorrect to set a different ratio between punitive damages and actual compensatory damages as to each of the Plaintiffs under the circumstances. In light of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit, therefore, vacates and remands the punitive damages awards to each Appellant with instructions that the district court recalculates punitive damages in an amount equal to eight times the actual compensatory damages determination. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8c2dmt from Leagle.com. Jeffrey B. Gurrola -- jgurrola@gmsr.com -- (argued), Cynthia E. Tobisman -- ctobisman@gmsr.com -- and Joseph V. Bui -- jbui@gmsr.com; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Los Angeles, California; Bryan C. Altman, Altman Law Group, Los Angeles, California; Steve B. Mikhov, Knight Law Group LLP, Los Angeles, California; Scot D. Wilson -- Info@KnightLaw.com -- Call & Jensen APC, Newport Beach, California; Robert S. Peck -- robert.peck@cclfirm.com -- Center of Constitutional Litigation, Washington, D.C.; Hallen D. Rosner and Arlyn L. Escalante -- arlyn@rbblawgroup.com; Rosner, Barry & Babbitt LLP, San Diego, California, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- (argued), Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Suhana Han -- hans@sullcrom.com -- Elizabeth N. Olsen -- olsene@sullcrom.com -- and William H. Wagener -- wagenerw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York; Sverker K. Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- and Laura K. Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Palo Alto, California; Michael Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the Defendants-Appellees. WALGREEN PHARMACY: Gamarro Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anita Gamarro, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC, Walgreen Co., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI22033 was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 13, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01811-MEMF-SP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ -- is a go-to for pharmacy, health & wellness and photo products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Wallin, Esq. David D Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: alex@tomorrowlaw.com david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Karina Lo, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER 1920 Main Street Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Fax: (949) 223-7100 Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com karina.lo@bclplaw.com - and - Daria Dub Carlson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Phone: (310) 576-2100 Fax: (310) 576-2200 Email: daria.carlson@bclplaw.com XELERO TECHNOLOGY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xelero Technology, LLC. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Xelero Technology, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08927 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Xelero -- https://xeleroshoes.com/ -- is a pioneer in comfort and wellness footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal YUMMERS PET SUPPLY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yummers Pet Supply Corporation. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Yummers Pet Supply Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08694 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yummers Pet Supply -- https://yummerspets.com/ -- is a pet products company..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ********* 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 ***