/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 217 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Loses Bid to Stay Counter- & 3rd Party Claims ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 14 ANADARKO E&P: BEK Bid to Disqualify Witness Nixed APERTURE INVESTORS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Affirmative Defenses in Gatchalian Suit Struck BANK OF AMERICA: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered in Bruin Class Suit BOSTON BEER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit CALEXICO CINCO: Aguilar Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages CENTURYLINK INC: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing CHEGG INC: Hearing for Securities Fraud Suit Set for June 2023 CHRIS SANNELLA: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos CLAUDE CHARLES: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alba Suit Alleges CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in OGP Suit DANTE WATTLEY: Nationwide Replaces Bell as Named Plaintiff DONALD TRUMP: Court Approves Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule ENVIVA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2 EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Suits in Canadian Courts ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Stipulation in Dougherty OK'd FIGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3 FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement in RICO Suit Initially OK'd FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: OKs to Pay $27-M to Settle Milk Payouts Suit FRESHWORKS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3 GEICO GENERAL: Joint Status Report Submission Extended to Nov. 21 GITHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Open-Source Licenses INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Sep. 2, 2020 Order JOSEPH LEONARD: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Seeks Leave for Class Cert. Discovery KING'S SEAFOOD: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $350,000 KITSAP RESIDENCES: Court Junks Settlement in Ong Suit LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Blood Suit LEAD INTELLIGENCE: Faces Williams Suit Over CIPA Violation LEJEUNE BAUVIL: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BLM Suit to 9th Cir. MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Telemarketing Calls MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted MDL 2744: Goldsmith, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes MDL 2744: Marble Suit Seeks Class Certification of Utah Class MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Barton Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Black Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Cuddy Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Drover-Mundy MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Fieker Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Kimmel Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Mulvey Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nabong Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nadel Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Pasternacki MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Poppe Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Shaffer Suit MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Willis Suit MDL 2903: Flores, Megan Seek to Certify California Class MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Sued Over PFOA Contamination in Water Works MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Class Suits MORGAN RUN: Discriminates Against Female Members, Suit Claims NEPTUNE WELLNESS: To Settle Gong Suit Over SEC Filing Issues NORMA MORRIS: Court OK's Nationwide as Named Plaintiff in Bell Suit OAK HARBOR: Fails to Pay Pickup & Delivery Drivers' OT Wages OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Loses Bid to Junk Suit Related to Tax Collection PLANNED COMPANIES: Gonzalez Hits Unlawful Labor Practices POLISHED.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30 PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Spam Calls Invade Privacy, Sutherland Says RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Darnis Suit w/ Prejudice SAFEMOON LLC: Crypto Investor Dropped Fraud Class Action Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Transferred to D.N.J. SEALED AIR: Settlement Deal in UA Local 13 Suit for Initial Nod SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Pages SISENSE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 3 SONY CORP: Hit With Class Suit Over G Master Camera Lens Recall STEPHANIE MORRIS: Fails to Pay Office Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA TRANS UNION: Dillon Suit Alleges Illegal Collection of Biometrics TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir. TWITTER INC: Sued Over CEO Elon Musk's Plan to Eliminate Jobs U.S. BANCORP: Faces Buhrke Family Suit Over Drop in Share Price UNITED SERVICES: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule OK'd US FOODS: Attebery Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. US STEEL: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Court Nod VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Cantinieri Suit WELLS FARGO: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Background Check WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Pending YALE UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Vellali, et al. [*] Consumer Class Action Suits Target Titanium Dioxide in Products ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Loses Bid to Stay Counter- & 3rd Party Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Dhananjay Patel, et al., Plaintiffs v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11414-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for separate and final judgment and for a stay of 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims. In June 2017, Local 7-Eleven franchise store owners and operators, Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel and Niral Patel (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this class action alleging that 7-Eleven (1) misclassified the franchisees as independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148B (Count I) and (2) violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148 (Count II). The Plaintiffs also asserted that 7-Eleven violated the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, Sections 1, 7 (Count III) but voluntarily withdrew that claim in July, 2020. In response, 7-Eleven counterclaimed for: (1) declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs' franchise agreements are void if they are deemed employees rather than independent contractors (Counterclaim I), (2) breach of contract (Counterclaim II) and (3) contractual indemnity (Counterclaim III). It also filed third-party complaints against DPNEWTO1, Inc., DP Tremont Street, Inc., DP Milk Street, Inc. and DP Jersey, Inc., the four corporations on behalf of which one of the named individual plaintiffs signed Franchise Agreements with 7-Eleven. In March 2020, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. This Court allowed summary judgment in favor of 7-Eleven based on a purported conflict between the Massachusetts ICL and the federal franchisor disclosure requirements in the FTC Franchise Rule. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for separate and final judgment on Counts I and II of their complaint to allow immediate appellate review and to stay adjudication of 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims pending their appeal. The Court allowed that motion and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiffs' claims against 7-Eleven. The Plaintiffs appealed that order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified a question of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("the SJC") in August 2021: Whether the three-prong test for independent contractor status set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 Section 148B applies to the relationship between a franchisor and its franchisee, where the franchisor must also comply with the FTC Franchise Rule. In March, 2022, the SJC answered the certified question, explaining that the Massachusetts ICL both applies to the franchisor-franchisee relationship and does not conflict with the FTC Franchise Rule. The First Circuit then vacated the decision of this Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. With the SJC's guidance on the Massachusetts ICL, this Court entered summary judgment for 7-Eleven in September 2022, on Counts I and II, holding that the Plaintiffs are independent contractors under the Massachusetts ICL. 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims were not the subject of the summary judgment motions and, therefore, remain pending. Trial is scheduled to commence in early February 2023. The Plaintiffs stress that their current request for a separate and final judgment to allow them to seek immediate appellate review is no different than their first one in 2020. Judge Gorton agrees with 7-Eleven that at this juncture it would be equitable and efficient to consider whether the case can be resolved in its entirety by summary judgment. The Plaintiffs argue that their dismissed claims are analytically distinct from 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims. Judge Gorton disagrees. He says the Plaintiffs' claims for independent contractor misclassification and Wage Act violations and the Defendant's claims for breach of contract and indemnification all turn on whether the Plaintiffs are independent contractors or employees. The Plaintiffs urge the Court to permit an interlocutory appeal because the First Circuit's decision "might" moot a remaining claim thus conserving party and judicial resources. Judge Gorton holds the Court can resolve the case at bar in its entirety in a matter of months either by summary judgment or trial and once the case is fully adjudicated, either party may appeal it to the First Circuit. Having so concluded, Judge Gorton accepts 7-Eleven's proposal in the recently-filed joint status report. 7-Eleven's motion for summary judgment will be promptly briefed after which the Court will decide it with due diligence. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton denies the Plaintiffs' motion. He directs the Defendant to file its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims on Nov. 18, 2022. The Plaintiffs will file their memorandum in opposition on Dec. 9, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/kyuakntu from Leagle.com. ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 14 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT, v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend deadline for limited class discovery and filing deadlines for motion for class certification: 1. Class certification motion November 14, 2022 filing deadline: 2. Deadline to file opposition December 9, 2022 to class certification motion: 3. Deadline to file reply in December 30, 2022 support of class certification motion: 4. Class discovery deadline December 9, 2022 limited to Allstate's supplemental production and report: On January 10, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a pre-certification discovery deadline of September 30, 2022, and a class certification motion filing deadline of October 28, 2022. On October 20, 2022, the parties' filed a stipulated motion to extend these deadlines. The parties proffer that: -- Allstate is continuing to identify and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's third set of discovery requests and diligently worked to identify the responsive documents; and -- Allstate will produce such responsive documents by October 28, 2022; Allstate offers life insurance policies. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DOfst3 at no extra charge.[CC] ANADARKO E&P: BEK Bid to Disqualify Witness Nixed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC, C C OPEN A, LLC, and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F. GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC, ANADARKO LAND CORPORATION, and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No. 1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martínez entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' corrected motion to disqualify expert witness Jaime Jost and to exclude expert report. The Court finds that Jost uses the terms "common" and "typical" in their ordinary sense rather than as terms of art in the context of Rule 23 jurisprudence. Jost does not opine that the class members cannot be ascertained. Instead, she explains, based on her knowledge of and experience with the oil and gas industry, why a one-size-fits-all method for identifying absent class members is flawed in her opinion. The Plaintiffs bring this breach of contract lawsuit alleging that the Defendants failed to pay them the correct monetary amount pursuant to the terms of their surface owner agreements ("SOAs"). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ns9lOC at no extra charge.[CC] APERTURE INVESTORS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APERTURE INVESTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-08977-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website https://apertureinvestors.com/ to be fully accessible for the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Aperture Investors, LLC is an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Affirmative Defenses in Gatchalian Suit Struck ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HARRIET GATCHALIAN, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-04108-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: a. grants the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants' affirmative defenses; and b. denies the Defendants' motion for leave to amend their answers. In this federal and state law fair debt collection practices lawsuit, the Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendants' affirmative defenses as insufficiently pled as a matter of law. The Defendants responded by moving to amend their answer to withdraw and reassert certain affirmative defenses. After carefully considering the parties' motions, Judge Corley concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and vacates the Nov. 10, 2022 hearing. In their motion for leave to amend their answers, the Defendants seek to assert three affirmative defenses: (1) failure to mitigate damages, (2) the Plaintiff's damages being the fault of the Plaintiff or a third-party not under the Defendants' control, and (3) the debt collection calls were made with the Plaintiff's consent. The parties agree that if the Plaintiff seeks only statutory damages then failure to mitigate is not a valid affirmative defense. The complaint itself seeks only statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and the class. This limitation on damages is reiterated by the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendants' motion to amend. As the failure to mitigate affirmative defense would be futile as a matter of law, Judge Corley denies leave to assert this defense. Judge Corley finds that the Defendants have not explained how their amorphous "Plaintiff's fault" or the "third-party fault" "defenses" are affirmative defenses on which they bear the burden of proof at trial. They have similarly not explained why they, rather than the Plaintiff, bear the burden of proving each Defendant's conduct and thus liability. Indeed, the Defendants do not cite a single case to support this affirmative defense. Accordingly, leave to amend to allege the "fault" defense is denied. Finally, as for the "consent" affirmative defense, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff might amend the complaint to allege a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim and the Plaintiff's consent is a valid affirmative defense to a TCPA claim. But if the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, the Defendants will have to respond to the amended complaint and can assert an applicable TCPA affirmative defense at that time. Thus, Judge Corley denies leave to amend to add a consent affirmative defense. For these reasons, Judge Corley grants the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants' affirmative defenses and denies the Defendants' motion for leave to amend. The Court will hold an initial case management conference on Nov. 10, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video. The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 21, 22. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n75hw9e from Leagle.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered in Bruin Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMI BRUIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No. 3:22-cv-140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C), the Hon. Judge David S. Cayer entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows: -- Rule 26 Disclosures: October 31, 2022 -- Class Certification April 21, 2023 Discovery Completion: -- Class Certification Expert Reports: Plaintiff: February 20, 2023 Defendant: March 20, 2023 -- Mediation: June 2, 2023 -- Class Certification Motion: June 21, 2023 The Court said, "Discovery in this case will be divided into two phases: (1) Phase I will be limited to discovery on class certification issues and (2) Phase II will be discovery on the merits of the case. Within 15 days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' expected Motion for Class Certification, the parties will submit a Supplemental Conference and Discovery Plan." The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WvTSRI at no extra charge.[CC] BOSTON BEER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2022, that a motion to dismiss a class action complaint has been filed and awaiting the decision of the court. On September 14, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by an individual shareholder in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York against the company and three of its officers. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021. The plaintiff claims that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. On October 8, 2021, a nearly identical complaint was filed against the company by an individual shareholder in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated the two actions and on December 14, 2021 appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2022. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 16, 2022 and is now awaiting the court's decision. The Boston Beer company, Inc. and certain subsidiaries are engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. CALEXICO CINCO: Aguilar Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL AGUILAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. CALEXICO CINCO LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO SEIS LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO 122 LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO 278B LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO CARNE ASADA LLC d/b/a CALEXICO, KATHLEEN OBRIEN, BRIAN VENDLEY, and PETER OLEYER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06345-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime due to time-shaving; frequency of pay violations; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Mr. Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as a line cook at Defendants' "Calexico Astoria" restaurant from November 2021 until January 31, 2022. The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants under the tradename "Calexico" at several locations in New York City.[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 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CENTURYLINK INC: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, v. CenturyLink Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order that: -- the Joint Motion to Extend Briefing is granted. -- the Defendant shall have until November 14, 2022 to file a Response to the Renewed Motion for Class Certification. -- the Plaintiff shall have until November 30, 2022 to file a Reply. CenturyLink is a telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWj6Xw at no extra charge.[CC] CHEGG INC: Hearing for Securities Fraud Suit Set for June 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------- Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the hearing for the putative securities fraud class action is scheduled in June 2023. On December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against Chegg and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Leventhal Matter"). On September 7, 2022, Judge Edward J. Davila appointed the lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in this matter. The parties agreed upon a scheduling for amending the complaint and motion to dismiss briefing in early 2023, and with a hearing slated for June 2023. The plaintiff in this matter seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, including counsel and expert fees. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Chegg Inc. operates a direct-to-student learning platform that supports students on their journey from high school to college and into their career with tools designed to help them to learn their course materials, succeed in their classes, and save money on required materials. The Company offers Chegg Services, which include subscription services; and required materials that comprise its print textbooks and eTextbooks.[BN] CHRIS SANNELLA: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. CHRIS SANNELLA, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-74-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 10, 2022. In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide's motions for final judgment without prejudice because it presented no evidence showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some related cases, again, because there was no evidence of any assignment. In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff. It asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/kp7r9ark from Leagle.com. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos ----------------------------------------------------------- Rob Tricchinelli at Bloomberg News reports that Church & Dwight Co. and Unilever United States Inc. were hit with separate proposed class actions alleging they failed to disclose the presence of benzene, a human carcinogen, in dry shampoo products. The lawsuits follow findings by Valisure, an analytical laboratory that tested 148 batches from 34 brands of spray-on dry shampoo and determined that 70% contained benzene. Dry shampoos are used to refresh hair in between washes. Sofia Goldgewicht says she has regularly used Church & Dwight's Batiste dry shampoo products since 2018 and bought them under the assumption that the labels were accurate and that the products were safe. The products are worthless in light of Valisure's finding that they contain levels of benzene that exceed the Food and Drug Administration's permissible amounts for cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs, she says in a suit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Robert Rullo sued Unilever in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of consumers who bought numerous dry shampoo aerosol products that were recalled because of potential benzene contamination. Although Unilever recalled the products last month, it downplayed the risks, Rullo alleges. Benzene exposure from body sprays is especially troubling because the spray is applied directly onto the skin, with the remnants in the air likely to be inhaled. That means even a relatively low concentration limit can result in very high total benzene exposure, he says. And Unilever knew about the risk of benzene contamination as early as July 2021, when the company's top competitors began recalling other aerosol products due to the presence of benzene and faced litigation based on those recalls, Rullo alleges. Additionally, in November 2021, Valisure confirmed the presence of benzene in aerosol antiperspirants and sunscreens, including Unilever's Suave line of antiperspirants, he says. Unilever was sued over its Suave products shortly afterward; the litigation is pending. The Valisure report also sparked litigation against other companies. Procter & Gamble Co. and consumers got preliminary approval late late month for a multi-million dollar settlement resolving allegations that the company didn't disclose benzene in certain antiperspirant products. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. also reached a settlement following litigation over its sunscreens, but the deal has been challenged after preliminary approval. Causes of Action: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; breach of express and implied warranty; unjust enrichment (Church & Dwight). New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; breach of implied warranty; fraudulent concealment; unjust enrichment (Unilever). Relief: Compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs (Church & Dwight, Unilever). Potential class size: Unknown number of purchasers in nationwide class, Florida subclass (Church & Dwight); nationwide class (Unilever). Response: Church & Dwight and Unilever didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys: Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert represents Goldgewicht. Squitieri & Fearon LLP and Joseph R. Santoli of Ridgewood, N.J., represent Rullo. The cases are Goldgewicht v. Church & Dwight Co., S.D. Fla., No. 1:22-cv-23585, complaint 11/2/22 and Rullo v. Unilever United States Inc., D.N.J., No. 2:22-cv-06422, complaint 11/2/22.[GN] CLAUDE CHARLES: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. CLAUDE CHARLES, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-139-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 14, 2022. Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4bk4b3 from Leagle.com. CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alba Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO ALBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case 2:22-cv-07806 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime, damages, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, reimbursement for expenses, restitution, penalites and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Alba was employed by the Defendants as staff. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. provides hazardous and non-hazardous material management and disposal services. The Company offers waste disposal and recycling, emergency response, chemical packaging, and field, industrial, oilfield, exploration, lodging, and in-site services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Selik, Esq. Christine Zaouk, Esq. McCATHERN LLP 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 Email: eselik@mccathernlaw.com czaouk@mccathernlaw.com CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in OGP Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OGP, LLC v. Contango Resources, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00382-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions for Leave to Amend Nov. 30, 2022 or Add Parties: 2. Documents previously produced April 26, 2023 by the parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: 3. Private Mediation to be completed May 31, 2023 by: 4. Joint Report on the status of the June 7, 2023 Private Mediation: 5. The Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert June 22, 2023 Disclosures and Reports for class certification purposes: 6. The Defendant's Rule 26 Expert July 28, 2022 Disclosures and Reports for class certification purposes: 7. Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Reports August 24, 2023 for class certification purposes: 8. Class Certification Motion and September 7, 2023 briefing: 9. Response to Class Certification October 13, 2023 Motion and briefing: 10. Class Certification Discovery October 20, 2023 Cutoff: Contango Resources is doing business in oil and gas industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TXVr9o at no extra charge.[CC] DANTE WATTLEY: Nationwide Replaces Bell as Named Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH D. BELL and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. DANTE WATTLEY, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-49-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Cour for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff filed on Oct. 7, 2022. In the Motion, Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants the Motion. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ex4betc from Leagle.com. DONALD TRUMP: Court Approves Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Denson v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04737-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order approving the proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiff's class certification bid. The Plaintiff filed the Motion on October 6, 2022. The following day, the Court referred the parties to a settlement conference before a Magistrate in light of the letters that they submitted in connection with the Campaign's August 9, 2022 pre-motion letter. On October 11, 2022, Magistrate Figueredo Scheduled a pre-settlement conference call for November 2, 2022. At this juncture, it is anticipated that the settlement conference itself will be conducted in mid to late-November 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wnjtw7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by Jared E. Blumetti, Esq. LAROCCA HORNIK ROSEN & GREENBERG LLP The Trump Building 40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530 4832 Facsimile: (212) 530 4815 E-mail: jblumetti@hrgb.com ENVIVA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Enviva Inc. (NYSE: EVA), and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and docketed under 22-cv-02844, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Enviva securities between February 21, 2019 and October 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchase or otherwise acquired Enviva securities, you have until January 2, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.[GN] EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Suits in Canadian Courts ------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2022, that five putative Canadian class actions, four of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, are pending against the company in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In addition to seeking class certification on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident, in some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of a larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident or earlier and were not impacted by the incident. Equifax Inc. is a data, analytics, and technology company based in Georgia. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Stipulation in Dougherty OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- Esperion Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the court has approved the stipulation of settlement terms of the purported class action Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. on August 24, 2021. On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015 public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On March 12, 2021, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle of the securities class action, and on April 26, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve all legal claims, in which defendants expressly deny that they have committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, which the court approved on August 24, 2021, the Company and certain of the Company's insurance carriers caused a payment of $18.25 million to be made to the plaintiff class. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. is a public American pharmaceutical company focused on the development of bempedoic acid, an orally available small molecule designed to lower elevated levels of LDL-C. FIGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise: (i) FIGS, Inc. ("FIGS" or the "Company") securities between May 27, 2021 and May 12, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (ii) FIGS stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with FIGS' initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Founded in 2013, FIGS is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and lifestyle brand that primarily sells its products in the United States through the Company's digital platforms. While FIGS is best known for its medical scrubs, it also offers other healthcare apparel such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear, loungewear, compression socks, footwear, and masks. On June 1, 2021, FIGS announced the closing of its IPO. Pursuant to the Registration Statement, defendants issued to the public 30,344,317 shares of Class A common stock, including the full exercise of the underwriters option to purchase an additional 3,957,954, at the price of $22 per share. The offering consisted of 4,636,364 shares sold by FIGS and 25,707,953 shares sold by Tulco, LLC ("Tulco"), the Company's largest stockholder. All the sales were issued pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts that were required by applicable law and necessary to make the statements therein not misleading. In particular, the Registration Statement misleadingly claimed that due to the Company's access to significant customer data, it was able to maintain an efficient and steady supply chain. The truth was, however, that the Company's access to data did not allow it to mitigate supply chain problems through predictable sales. Instead, FIGS had to increasingly rely on air freight that costs materially more than the overseas shipping it previously relied on. While the Registration Statement did contain a mention of air freight, this in itself was misleading. The Registration Statement blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for the use of air freight in the time leading up to the IPO. The truth, was, however, that FIGS was continually relying on air freight for its business. Even after the IPO, as the Company continued to rely on air freight, Defendants continued to claim that the Company's use of air freight was transitory. For example, Defendants stated that the use of air freight was at its "peak" during the fourth quarter of 2021, and that "we're pretty confident that we're going to see less airfreight overall than we're seeing it in [the fourth quarter] as we get into [2022]." On May 12, 2022, the Company announced disappointing results and slashed its expected sales, gross margin, and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization because of these "supply chain" issues. FIGS also admitted that not only did they continue to rely on air freight during the first quarter of 2022, but that "[f]or the rest of the year, we plan to significantly increase our use of airfreight to reduce our exposure to these unpredictable transit times." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.21 per share, or almost 25%, to close just $9.64 per share on May 13, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired FIGS securities, including pursuant to the IPO, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit FIGS, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement in RICO Suit Initially OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that on July 27, 2020, July 31, 2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported customers of FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) filed putative class action lawsuits against FE and FirstEnergy Service Company, (FESC), as well as certain current and former FE officers, alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations and related state law claims. FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April 11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to these lawsuits. On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class settlement and scheduled the final fairness hearing for November 9, 2022. Firstenergy Corp and its subsidiaries are principally involved in the transmission, distribution and generation of electricity based in Ohio. FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: OKs to Pay $27-M to Settle Milk Payouts Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dairy giant Fonterra has agreed to pay A$25 million (NZ $27m) to settle a class action claim brought by Australian farmers over a cut in milk payouts six years ago. The co-operative said it had settled without any admission of liability and there would be no impact on its financial position. "The settlement sum of A$25 million inclusive of interest and all costs, if approved, has already been provided for in the prior year's financial statements and will not have a material impact on Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited's financial position" it said in a brief NZX statement. The case arose from claims by several farmers in the state of Victoria that Fonterra had breached the terms of its supply contracts and misled suppliers when it moved to cut milk payouts in 2016. The farmers claimed Fonterra's milk payout was based on meeting or exceeding those of competitor, Murray Goulburn, rather than in line with their supply contracts. Murray Goulburn cut its forecast price by as much as 15 percent and shortly afterwards Fonterra moved to cut its payout by nearly as much. The farmers alleged the way Fonterra communicated the price change amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct, and that it had acted unconscionably causing significant financial difficulty and distress. Fonterra had always denied the allegations, which it said would be vigourously defended, but had been in mediation with the claimants ahead of the scheduled 15 November hearing date. The claim was financed by a specialist litigation funding company [GN] FRESHWORKS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Freshworks Inc. ("Freshworks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FRSH) pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Freshworks, which is headquartered in San Mateo, California, provides customer engagement software for businesses. On or about September 22, 2021, Freshworks conducted its IPO, offering 28.5 million shares of its common stock to the investing public at a price of $36 per share (the "Offering Price"). Defendants anticipated generating gross proceeds of over $1 billion from the IPO. According to the Offering Documents, Freshworks' business had "grown rapidly" in the lead up to the IPO, with the Company observing "broad appeal of [its] products to customers of all sizes and geographies." As a result, the Company's growth rates and purportedly "healthy" net dollar retention rates, reflecting the usage of its products from existing customers and the sale of additional products to these customers, reached levels not previously achieved, and there was no indication that either was decelerating. Rather, the Offering Documents repeatedly and prominently touted Freshworks' 118% net dollar retention rate for the period ended June 30, 2021, which represented a noteworthy increase from the 107%, 111%, and 112% net dollar retention rates achieved as of June 30, 2020, December 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021, respectively, as well as Freshworks' year-over-year revenue growth rate of 53% (as of June 30, 2021), which likewise represented a significant increase over the Company's 45% year-over-year growth rate for the period ended December 31, 2020. Unbeknownst to investors, at the time of the IPO, Freshworks' revenue growth and billings had encountered obstacles. Freshworks' stock declined after the Company announced its fourth fiscal quarter of 2021 earnings on February 10, 2022, during which it reported flat calculated billings growth (of 41% when normalized for early renewals and reserve activity) and revenue growth deceleration of only 44% year over year. On this news, Freshworks' stock dropped 18%, closing on February 11, 2022 at $18.41 per share. Then, on May 3, 2022, after the market closed, Freshworks reported its first quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a third quarter of decelerating revenue growth and billings that missed consensus estimates and declined 13% quarter over quarter. Many analysts immediately responded by reducing their price targets. For example, on May 4, 2022, after highlighting how Freshworks' revenue growth has "decelerat[ed]" three consecutive quarters, including during the period within which Freshworks went public, defendant JMP Securities LLC dropped its price target from $41 to $29. On May 5, 2022, Freshworks closed at $15.99 per share, down approximately 5.72% over two days. By the commencement of this action, Freshworks' shares traded as low as $10.51 per share, a decline of nearly 70% from the Offering price. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Freshworks common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Freshworks Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] GEICO GENERAL: Joint Status Report Submission Extended to Nov. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status report as follows: The Parties stipulate and agree that good cause exists to extend the deadline to submit a joint status report to November 21, 2022. On July 29, 2021, this Court entered an Order staying this matter and ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v. First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2021). On February 11, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in Lara affirming Judge Bryan's denial of class certification in Lundquist v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB. On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellants in Lara petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On May 10, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lara. On August 19, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 107, which this Court granted on August 22, 2022, Dkt. No. 108. The motion extended the deadline to submit a joint status report to September 21, 2022. On September 21, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 109, which this Court granted on September 23, 2022, Dkt. No. 110. The motion extended the deadline to submit a joint status report to October 21, 24 2022. The Parties jointly and respectfully request an additional extension of 31 days for the deadline to submit a joint status report. The Parties are continuing to pursue settlement, negotiations, and the requested extension will allow the Parties to conduct those negotiations without the pressure of immediate court deadlines. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DR7D6e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - John M. DeStefano, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. Elizabeth T. Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 The Defendant is represented by Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 583.8888 Facsimile: (206) 583.8500 E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com - and - Dan W. Goldfine Brian J. Hembd DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 - and - Steven J. Pacini, Esq LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 880.4516 E-mail: steven.pacini@lw.com - and - Vanessa S. Power, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. Jason R. Burt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637.2200 E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com jason.burt@lw.com GITHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Open-Source Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- GitHub Copilot, an AI-based coding product made by GitHub in cooperation with OpenAI, appears to profit from the work of open-source programmers by violating the conditions of their open-source licenses. The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, a leading class-action firm with offices in California and New York, and Matthew Butterick, a lawyer and open-source programmer, are filing a class-action lawsuit against GitHub Copilot, its parent, Microsoft, and its AI-technology partner, OpenAI, on behalf of open-source programmers for these potential violations of open-source licenses. According to GitHub, Copilot has been trained on billions of lines of publicly-available code, leaving open-source programmers with serious concerns regarding license violations. "I am grateful to the programmers and users who came forward to bring this case to fruition and ensure that corporations like Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI cannot unfairly profit from the work of open-source creators," said Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm. He continued, "This case represents the first major step in the battle against intellectual-property violations in the tech industry arising from artificial-intelligence systems. In this case, the work of open-source programmers is being exploited. But this will not be the last community of creators who are affected by AI systems. Our firm is committed to standing up for these creators and ensuring that companies developing AI products are held accountable under the law." "As a longtime open-source programmer, it was apparent from the first time I tried Copilot that it raised serious legal concerns, which have been noted by many others since Copilot was first publicly previewed in 2021," said Matthew Butterick. He continued, "Because I'm also a lawyer, I felt compelled to stand up for the open-source community. I've known Joe since he started the Joseph Saveri Law Firm. He has built it into one of the finest class-action firms in the country. I'm pleased to be teaming up with Joe and his firm on behalf of the open-source programmers whose rights are being violated by Copilot." About The Firm The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed, successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse industries. For further information on our practice and accomplishments on behalf of our clients, please visit www.saverilawfirm.com or call us at (415) 869-6896. About Matthew Butterick Matthew Butterick is a lawyer, programmer, designer, and writer. He has been professionally involved with open-source software since 1998. His books Typography for Lawyers (typographyforlawyers.com) and Practical Typography (practicaltypography.com) are relied on daily by lawyers and writers worldwide. For more information, please visit matthewbutterick.com. This lawsuit constitutes a critical chapter in an industry-wide debate regarding the ethics of training AI tools with data sourced without permission from its creators and what constitutes a fair use of intellectual property. Despite Microsoft's protestations to the contrary, it does not have the right to treat source code offered under an open-source license as if it were in the public domain. For more information, please see our investigation page [GN] INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Sep. 2, 2020 Order -------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the order of the District Court dated September 9, 2020 that denied the motion of plaintiff finding that the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint. On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On June 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and on July 31, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claimed to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 9, 2016, and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleged that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures during that period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing and use, and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance, and prospects. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint. On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020 judgment, and other court orders. On April 23, 2021, the Company filed a response brief in the Second Circuit appellate proceeding. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief. On December 9, 2021, oral argument was held in the Second Circuit. On June 16, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the order of the District Court dated September 9, 2020. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases, including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC") and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and Canada. JOSEPH LEONARD: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH LEONARD, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-34-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 5, 2022. In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide's motions for final judgment without prejudice because it presented no evidence showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some related cases, again, because there was no evidence of any assignment. In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff. Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvuw5y7w from Leagle.com. KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Seeks Leave for Class Cert. Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KHAYLIE HAZEL YEARNING LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an granting him leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery. The Plaintiff alleges that Khaylie Hazel violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NqvFrH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T.Ramsey, Esq. SHEEHAN AND RAMSEY, PLLC 429 Porter Avenue Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Telephone: (228) 875-0572 Facsimile: (228) 875-0895 E-mail: mike@sheehanramsey.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. Eric H. Weitz, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 698-0875 E-mail: maxmorgan@theweitzfirm.com ericweitz@theweitzfirm.com KING'S SEAFOOD: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $350,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christine Blank at seafoodsource.com reports that Costa Mesa, California, U.S.A.-based restaurant chain King's Seafood will pay up to USD 350,000 (EUR 358,000) in a class action settlement over a data breach. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said King's Seafood must pay up to USD 3,000 (EUR 3,072) per class-member for monetary loss arising directly from documented identity theft "that is fairly traceable to the data breach." King's Seafood must pay up to USD 450 (EUR 461) per class-member for expenses, fees, and lost time incurred as a direct result of the data breach. The company will also provide class-members with two years of free identity-theft protection and monitoring services. King's total monetary payment obligation is not to exceed USD 350,000, Carney ruled. The operator of 12 restaurants was the victim of a cyberattack that started in June 2021, in which the hacker was able to obtain personal identifiable information, such as driver's license numbers and credit card data, of employees and customers, according to a letter King's Seafood sent to customers. Former employee Jonathan Bowdle filed the class-action complaint in October 2021, citing King's "failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of its customers and employees, without limitation, names, driver's license information, payment card information, medical cards, telephone numbers, and partially redacted Social Security number." The restaurant chain failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Bowdle and other affected employees and customers of "precisely what type of information was unencrypted and is now in the possession of unknown third parties." The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for 13 February, 2023. [GN] KITSAP RESIDENCES: Court Junks Settlement in Ong Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL ONG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KITSAP RESIDENCES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05095-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order declining to adopt Lynn's Food rule and denying the parties' joint motion without prejudice for court approval of settlement. The Plaintiff remains free to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). On February 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a collective action suit against Kitsap pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff has not, at present, moved for conditional class certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UiELcp at no extra charge.[CC] LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Blood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY BLOOD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 5:22-cv-04036-HLT-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: -- The named plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims in federal court. But the Court does not dismiss the case and instead remands the case to state court. -- The court further orders that the Defendant's motion to strike remains pending and should be transferred to the state court. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show they have standing to bring any of their claims. The Defendant sought dismissal on this basis. But this case is a removal case. And courts routinely treat standing as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. When a case has been removed and a court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the case. This command is mandatory." Labette County Medical Center operates physician clinics and provides inpatient and outpatient services to the residents of the southeastern Kansas area. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8Ms4L at no extra charge.[CC] LEAD INTELLIGENCE: Faces Williams Suit Over CIPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022 that Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative class action against the company's subsidiary Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya on June 27, 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 ("CIPA") and invaded Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights when Defendants purportedly recorded visitors' visits to the scrappyrent2 own.com website without prior express consent. It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the California Constitution. The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation, attorneys fees and other litigation costs. The deadline to file the Company's responsive pleading is November 21, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), provides data analytics solutions for customers in the insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services, and risk management markets in the United States and internationally. The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. LEJEUNE BAUVIL: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO, Plaintiff v. LEJEUNE BAUVIL, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-mc-34-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 4, 2022. The Court previously denied Nationwide's motion for final judgment without prejudice because it presented no evidence showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in this case, again, because there was no evidence of any assignment. Now pending before the Court is Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff. It asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/37xt4ckp from Leagle.com. LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BLM Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting a motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this civil rights suit against the Defendants on June 5, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify injunctive relief class and damages class. The injunctive relief claims are aimed at protecting Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to protest. The damages class claims, as the proposed damages class definitions contained in the Notice of Motion reflect, break into three groupings: 1) The Arrest 22 Class, who were handcuffed and held on buses without water and bathroom access 23 for hours; 2) the Infraction Class, who were arrested when they should have been released in the field on a promise to appear; and 3) the Direct Force Class, composed of people who were struck by the improper and indiscriminate use of batons and "less-lethal" weapons, or forced to the ground, and who were not violently resisting arrest and did not present an immediate threat of physical harm. On October 3, 2022, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The appellate case is captioned Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 22-80117, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq. Bijan Esfandiari, Esq. Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 - and - Lindsay Brooke Battles, Esq. KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 - and - Colleen Flynn, Esq. MANN & COOK 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 - and - Denisse O. Gastelum, Esq. GASTELUM LAW, APC 3767 Worsham Avenue Long Beach, CA 90808 Telephone: (213) 340-6112 - and - Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 717-7373 - and - James Do Kim, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 - and - Barrett Stephen Litt, Esq. MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 - and - Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. Michael Seplow, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 9415 Culver Boulevard, Suite 115 Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 - and - Olu K. Orange, Esq. ORANGE LAW OFFICES 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 736-9900 - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 1158 26th Street, Suite 552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 - and - Matthew Daniel Strugar, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 696-2299 - and - John Clay Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 11543 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 - and - R. Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 820-6231 Defendants-Petitioners CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., are represented by: Jonathan H. Eisenman, Esq. OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-2212 - and - Michael Nelson Feuer, Esq. LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-8100 - and - Scott D. Marcus, Esq. LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-7558 - and - Joseph Persoff, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 200 N. Main Street 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (818) 631-9250 MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims that Marriott Vacations Worldwide has illegally placed unsolicited telemarketing calls without authorization, even after consumers have requested that the company stop contacting them. According to the 20-page suit, call centers employed by Marriott Vacations Worldwide have repeatedly contacted phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry to solicit vacation rental services and timeshares. The case alleges Marriott Vacations Worldwide purchased consumer contact and demographic information, which it has used to call individuals without consent, from multiple lead generators. The complaint alleges that during 2021 and 2022, the plaintiff, a Texas consumer, received calls from Marriott Vacations Worldwide offering vacation packages, even though the woman's number had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and she never gave the company permission to contact her. Further, the filing contends that the plaintiff told Marriott Vacations Worldwide multiple times to remove her from any internal call lists and to stop calling her, but the company continued to contact her "many times." Per the suit, several of Marriott Vacations Worldwide's "overzealous" telemarketing practices, such as contacting phone numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry without obtaining prior express written consent and continuing to call after receiving requests to stop, are prohibited under the federal Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA). Additionally, the complaint charges that Marriott Vacations Worldwide has illegally placed more than one unsolicited phone call to the consumer within a 12-month period, and used a pre-recorded or automatic telephone dialing system to place calls without securing permission beforehand. The lawsuit looks to stop Marriott Vacations Worldwide's alleged misconduct, which has allegedly caused consumers harm in the form of "aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls." The suit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, within the past four years, received more than one telephone call within a 12-month period from Marriott Vacations Worldwide, or anyone on its behalf, to a phone number that had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. [GN] MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY SONNEVELDT, et al., v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS and MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: -- denying motions to exclude expert testimony; and -- granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following eight Classes are certified under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3): 1. The California Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of California for personal, family, or household purposes;" 2. The Song-Beverly Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of California for personal, family, or household purposes;" 3. The Massachusetts Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Massachusetts for personal, or household purposes;" 4. The Michigan Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State of Michigan for personal, family, or household purposes. 5. The Missouri Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State of Missouri for personal, family, or household purposes;" 6. The Ohio Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Ohio;" 7. The Texas Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Texas;" 8. The Virginia Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State of Virginia for personal, family, or household purposes;" -- appointng Plaintiffs Terry Sonneveldt, Esther Wright Schneider, Jean Levasseur, Tim Halwas, Erin Matheny, Lewis Delvecchio, Jon Sowards, Lawrence Bohana, Monika Bohana, David Dennis, and Jaqueline S. Aslan as Class Representatives of the Classes that they seek to represent; -- appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., and Kiesel Law LLP as Class Counsel in this case; -- denying certification of Plaintiffs' proposed Louisiana and North Carolina Classes; and -- directing the parties to meet and confer and to submit an agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise class members of, among other things, the damages sought and their rights to intervene, opt out, submit comments, and contact class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that certification is appropriate because the engines of all the Vehicles contain identical or substantially similar water pumps that share the same design defect. The Plaintiffs' defect theory relies in large part on the opinions of their engineering expert, Dr. Christopher White. White opines that the water pumps in the Class Vehicles are defective because a key component part of those pumps' mechanical seal, which prevents coolant from flowing into the drive shaft side of the pump and into the engine's oil pan, is defective. Specifically, White contends that the water pumps' elastomer bellows is defectively designed because it is made of hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) and is in constant, unshielded contact with high temperature coolant. Because the HNBR bellows is constantly exposed to high temperature coolant, it degrades and loses elasticity or cracks. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WhWVNd at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2744: Goldsmith, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying two plaintiff classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) defined as follows: "All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with a monostable shifter (Class Vehicles) during the class period of 2011 until April 22, 2016 where the Class Vehicle was purchased in California but excluding every person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries caused by those vehicles under any legal theory;" and "All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with a monostable shifter ("Class Vehicles") during the class period of 2011 until April 22, 2016 where the Class Vehicle was purchased in New York but excluding every person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries caused by those vehicles under any legal theory;" 2. Appointing the following named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives: -- David Goldsmith (California), Michael Vincent Nathan, Jr. (California), -- John Lynd (New York), and -- Janella Mack (New York); 3. Appointing the following leadership structure pursuant to Rule 23(g): a. E. Powell Miller and Steve W. Berman as Lead Counsel and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and b. Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel Gustafson, and Robert Shelquist as members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. 4. Providing any other appropriate relief in support of class certification. In accordance with L.R. 7.1(a), the Plaintiffs' counsel sought the concurrence of Defendant's counsel in the relief sought by this Motion on October 12, 2022, but concurrence was not obtained. FCA allegedly failed to disclose that at least 131,048 Class Vehicles FCA sold or leased to consumers in California and New York contained serious usability flaws in the monostable gear shifter. These usability flaws affected the central functionality of the Class Vehicles, as well as their safe and proper operation. The Plaintiffs contend that they satisfy all the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SYJIWC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam E. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com msilvey@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GULEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@loclaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com MDL 2744: Marble Suit Seeks Class Certification of Utah Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION (MDL 2744), Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff Trevor Marble asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (3): "All persons or entities who have purchased or leased a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014- 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter, where the vehicle was purchased or leased in Utah, but excluding every person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries caused by those vehicles under any legal theory." The Plaintiff seeks certification of the Utah Class for a claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. 2. Appointing him as the Class Representative for the Class. 3. Appointing the following leadership structure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): a. E. Powell Miller and Steve W. Berman as Lead Counsel and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and b. Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel Gustafson, and Robert Shelquist as members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. 4. Any other appropriate relief in furtherance of class certification. FCA manufactured and sold or leased, in the State of Utah, at least 7,322 Class Vehicles with a monostable gear shifter that has a design defect that renders the Class Vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of providing safe transportation. The jury in the certified issues trial concluded that the design defect exists in these Class Vehicles under Utah law. Thus, certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class for breach of implied warranty of merchantability (pursuant to Utah Code section 70A-2-314) and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) is appropriate. After more than six years of litigation, multiple motions to dismiss, a motion for class certification, a motion for summary judgment, and a Rule 23(c)(4) issues trial, the Court is undoubtedly well-versed in the facts of this case. Thus, Plaintiff incorporates the facts as stated in Plaintiffs' original motion for class certification, the Court's opinion on class certification, and the Court's opinion on summary judgment and will only provide a brief summary below. FCA sold or leased more than 800,000 Class Vehicles nationwide with the same monostable electronic gear shifter supplied by ZF Friedrichshaffen (ZF). As FCA's own studies confirm, the monostable shifter is defective because it inhibits reliable gear selection and provides insufficient tactile or audible feedback to allow drivers to readily and confidently shift to their intended gear. FCA conducted numerous human machine interface (HMI) studies to provide feedback and data on the usability of the monostable shifters. As was made clear during the issues trial (and in the Court's opinion on summary judgment), FCA had alternative shifters that it could have included in the Class Vehicles, including, specifically, the gated mechanical shifter or the electronic rotary shifter. In fact, in October 2010, FCA decided to use the rotary knob in the Class Vehicles before abandoning it shortly thereafter due to a minor increase in cost. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyTZG7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Chair of Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, are: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. 301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com trgaden@ktmc.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.LP. 100 Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam E. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 533-0049 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com msilvey@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Barton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Barton Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foeSJj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Black Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Black Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ua4qE0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Cuddy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Cuddy Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ucrhi5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Drover-Mundy ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy, et al v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y.), , the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Drover-Mundy Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fr1UdR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Fieker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (W.D.N.Y.), , the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Fieker Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sOido6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Kimmel Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Kimmel Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SW4UMZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Mulvey Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Mulvey Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UcqXzT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nabong Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NABONG v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Nabong Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2903). Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SXmQGW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nadel Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel et al v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Nadel Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DPgXHH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Pasternacki ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Pasternacki Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WjXiH3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Poppe Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Poppe Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ztL0C4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Shaffer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Schaffer Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NnqBEq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Willis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Willis Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDrkSl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2903: Flores, Megan Seek to Certify California Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class; "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDZxzb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Sued Over PFOA Contamination in Water Works --------------------------------------------------------------- Middlesex Water Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that in November 2021, the company was served with two class action lawsuits seeking restitution for medical, water replacement and other claimed related costs related to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination. The company's insurance provider has acknowledged coverage of potential liability which may result from these lawsuits. In May 2022, the company impleaded 3M Company as a third-party defendant in one of these class action lawsuits. The company has taken this action in addition to a separate lawsuit the company initiated against 3M seeking to hold 3M accountable for introduction of perfluoroalkyl substances, which include PFOA, into the company's water supply at its Park Avenue Wellfield facility. Middlesex Water Company is the parent company and sole shareholder of Tidewater Utilities, Inc., Pinelands Water Company and Pinelands Wastewater company, Utility Service Affiliates, Inc. (USA), and Utility Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy) Inc. (USA-PA). MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Mondelez International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that Mondelez Global is facing several complaints filed by investors. Several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the District Court by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action, and the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as case number 15-cv-2937, Harry Ploss et al. v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC. On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request to certify a class. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on the Company's Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, it expects to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the class action. Although the CFTC action and the class action complaints involve the same alleged conduct, the resolution of the CFTC matter may not be dispositive as to the outcome of the class action. In November 2019, the European Commission informed the Company that it initiated an investigation into its alleged infringement of European Union competition law through certain practices restricting cross-border trade within the European Economic Area. On January 28, 2021, the European Commission announced it took the next procedural step in its investigation and opened formal proceedings. The Company is cooperating with the investigation and are engaging with the European Commission as its investigation proceeds. It is not possible to predict how long the investigation will take or the ultimate outcome of this matter. Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois which employs approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC] MORGAN RUN: Discriminates Against Female Members, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a female member of Morgan Run Club & Resort in San Diego, California has filed a proposed class action claiming the private tennis club's owner, ClubCorp, discriminates against women. According to the 15-page case, ClubCorp, who owns private country clubs throughout the U.S., has violated California law by treating male members more favorably than female members when providing services and upholding its policies. As the case tells it, ClubCorp has allowed male members to "constantly" harass, intimidate and verbally abuse women at the club, and has retaliated against female members when they issue complaints. The plaintiff claims she filed a formal complaint with ClubCorp after a male member and agent of the club sent her abusive and harassing text messages. After a grievance hearing, the club made the "intentionally biased decision" to terminate the plaintiff's membership and overlook its bylaws by refusing to take any adverse action against the male member, the lawsuit relays. Additionally, the complaint asserts that male club members were offered greater privileges during men's night tennis events, such as an extended happy hour, a 50-percent discount on freshly cooked food, seating at the restaurant, a free drink, a "wide selection" of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages by the glass or by the bottle, staffing until the end of the event and the option to reserve neighboring courts. The case contends that at women's night tennis events, the happy hour would end early, the restaurant would not be open, and the women were not provided a free drink, discounts, restaurant seating or beverages by the glass. Instead, the suit alleges, female club members were only given pre-packaged food and had to eat "on the cold, hard asphalt tennis court." Moreover, the club provided staffing for women's night events only until the tennis house was closed at 5:30 pm, the case says, and players were scattered across courts that were not adjoining or close to one another. Despite its "first-come, first-served" policy for reserving tennis courts, ClubCorp, the case argues, would not allow female members to participate if more male members had reserved spots, even if the women had signed up first. Per the complaint, ClubCorp has on several occasions dismissed or sent women home "under false pretexts" during mixed double events. In addition, the suit alleges that ClubCorp refused to offer evening tennis clinics to female members even though it offers the same service to male members. "Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered from unlawful discrimination, emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment and have been deprived from enjoying the services due to the Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful business practices," the filing argues. The lawsuit looks to represent all female members of the private clubs owned and operated by ClubCorp USA and ClubCorp Golf of California. [GN] NEPTUNE WELLNESS: To Settle Gong Suit Over SEC Filing Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the current report dated October 21, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that in October 21, 2022, Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. announced that it has agreed to settle and resolve a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Neptune and certain of its current and former officers and directors, captioned "Gong v. Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc." (Case No. 2:21-cv-01386-ENV-ARL) pending in the United States District court for the Eastern District of New York. The litigation relates to allegations that, among other things, the company had made misrepresentations of material information. Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. is into pharmaceutical preparations based in Canada. NORMA MORRIS: Court OK's Nationwide as Named Plaintiff in Bell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH D. BELL, Plaintiff v. NORMA MORRIS, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-23-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff filed on Oct. 4, 2022. In the Motion, Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants the request. He concludes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and therefore Nationwide should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynnhcrek from Leagle.com. OAK HARBOR: Fails to Pay Pickup & Delivery Drivers' OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN TITUS, an individual, v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC. (OHFL); and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01929-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action lawsuit alleging that the Defendant fails to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. Mr. Titus was hired by OHFL on October 5, 2020 and was initially hired as a non-exempt employee and assigned the position of pickup & delivery driver. Accordingly, pursuant to its uniform policy, practice and procedure, OHFL failed to include commissions, non-discretionary bonuses and other items of compensation when determining employees' "regular rate of pay" for purposes of overtime. These unfair business practices included failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay all overtime and sick paid owed and at the correct rate, failing to provide compliant meal and rest periods or to pay premiums for the same at the correct rates, failing to pay drivers for their time spent on Non-Driving Tasks on trips that could not be completed in one day, failing to pay drivers minimum wage for attending to their trucks during meal breaks as required by California law, and failure timely pay employees at the end of their employment, the suit claims. OHFL is a leading west regional LTL carrier serving points throughout the States of Arizona, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wassermann, Esq. Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. Website: www.mayallaw.com 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 E-mail: rwassermann@mayallaw.com vjkozina@mayallaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Loses Bid to Junk Suit Related to Tax Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Circuit Court of St. Louis Count denied the company's motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit alleging over-collection of taxes on products sold in Missouri on March 16, 2022. On March 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, alleging similar allegations to the April 23, 2020 putative class action lawsuit that was dismissed, that its over-collected taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied on October 13, 2021. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on March 16, 2022. Overstock describes itself as a "customer-focused online retailer" that "provide[s] high-quality merchandise, great value, and exceptional customer service." To provide its services, Overstock employs numerous hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- who assist Overstock's customers and clients throughout the United States (and the world).[BN] PLANNED COMPANIES: Gonzalez Hits Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- ANA GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PLANNED COMPANIES, an unknown business entity; PLANNED LIFESTYLE SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, INC, a New Jersey corporation; PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-22-602525 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 20, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff filed this complaint over the Defendants' failure to pay wages; failure to pay for all hours worked and missed (short, late, interrupted, and/or missed altogether) meal periods and rest breaks; failure to pay the legally required overtime compensation; failure to timely pay all wages; failure to comply with wage reporting; failure to provide complete and accurate payroll records; failed to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs; and engagement in unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately October 2020 to approximately March 2022. Planned Companies provides janitorial, maintenance, concierge, front desk, and security services to a wide array of clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 POLISHED.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Polished.com Inc. f/k/a Goedeker Inc. ("Polished," "Goedeker," or the "Company") securities: (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii) between July 27, 2020 and August 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant Polished purports to sell furniture, fitness equipment, plumbing fixtures, televisions, outdoor appliances, and patio furniture, as well as commercial appliances for builder and business clients as a content-driven and technology-enabled shopping destination for appliances, furniture and home goods. On July 20, 2022, the Company changed its name from "1847 Goedeker Inc." to "Polished.com Inc." In connection with the name change, the Company's common stock ceased trading under the ticker symbol "GOED" and began trading under the ticker symbol "POL." On August 3, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the IPO Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 1,111,200 shares at $9.00 per share. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (1) the Company would restate certain financials; (2) the Company's internal controls were inadequate; (3) the Company downplayed and obfuscated its internal controls issues; and (4) as a result, the Company would have an independent investigation. On March 29, 2021, after market hours, the Company filed with the SEC a report on Form 8-K ("Restatement 8-K"), which announced, among other things, that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019, should no longer be relied upon. On August 15, 2022, after market hours, Polished notified investors that it would not timely file its "quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2022 ('Second Quarter 10-Q') within the prescribed time period" because the Company required additional time to complete a newly announced investigation. On August 25, 2022, after market hours, the Company's current report on Form 8-K was accepted by the SEC. This report announced that the Company was no longer in compliance with NYSE American rules due to the Company failing to timely file its quarterly report, and that the Company was automatically given an extension until February 23, 2023 to regain compliance. Also on August 25, 2022, after market hours, the Company issued a press release entitled "Polished.com Provides Corporate Updates; Engages Leading Strategic Consulting Firm and Receives New York Stock Exchange Notice Regarding Late Form 10-Q Filing", which announced the NYSE notice and also announced that the Company had engaged "a leading strategic consulting firm with retail and ecommerce operations expertise to augment its existing management, identify opportunities to accelerate long-term profitable growth and, separately, to potentially expedite the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors' ongoing investigation." On October 18, 2022, the Company issued a press release entitled "Polished.com Announces Management Transition" which announced that Defendants Albert Fouerti, Maria Johnson, and Elie Fouerti had resigned from their roles at the Company effective October 14, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 30, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Polished securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Polished.com Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Spam Calls Invade Privacy, Sutherland Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Raleigh Sutherland v. Publishers Clearing House, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00270-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla, Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action alleging that the Defendant invades Mr. Sutherland, and class members' homes, phones, and privacy by initiating spam calls. Accordingly, PCH has knowingly and willfully called Mr. Sutherland multiple times, including at least four times from number 877-634-1170, for the purpose of soliciting Raleigh to purchase magazine and/or newspaper subscriptions. Mr. Sutherland answered some of these calls and expressed his desire to not be contacted and asked to be placed on PCH’s internal Do Not Call List, he says. Mr. Sutherland registered 585-750-1887 on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) to stop telephone solicitations on June 6, 2006, the suit says. Mr. Sutherland never provided 585-750-1887 to PCH, never had a relationship with PCH, and never gave permission for PCH to send any type of communication, the suit added. PCH allegedly initiated the calls using an automated system based on the following facts: -- the calls were generic and impersonal, suggesting they were sent to many people; -- the calls were not in response to anything Raleigh did; -- the calls continued after Raleigh asked for them to stop; and -- after the calls were answered, there was a beep and then a pause before the caller started talking. The unwanted spam invades their substantive right to privacy, namely the right to be free from unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff claims. The spam allegedly causes Raleigh and class members to avoid looking at their phones when it may be important or interrupting other activities to respond to unwanted calls. The spam reduces their phones' storage and battery life. In short, the spam invades their privacy, diminishes the value of their phones and their enjoyment of life, and causes a nuisance, an annoyance, and an intrusion into their seclusion, the Plaintiff contends. Publisher is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Jericho, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Kauffman, Esq. LAWHQ, P.C. 299 S. Main St. #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (385) 285-1090 E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Darnis Suit w/ Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that the class action complaint captioned "Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al." which asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has been dismissed by the court with prejudice. Several former employees of United Technologies Corporation (UTC) or its subsidiaries filed the putative class action complaint in the United States District court for the District of Connecticut against the company, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors. The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the separation of UTC into three independent, publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint also claimed that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and also asserted claims under certain provisions of ERISA. On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for breach of the equity compensation plans against the company, Otis and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims. Further, no claim is made in the amended complaint against any current or former director of any of the three companies. Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. On September 30, 2022, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the company, Otis and Carrier, the court dismissed the class action in its entirety with prejudice. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, based in Virginia, is a global premier systems provider of technology products and services to the aerospace and defense industries. SAFEMOON LLC: Crypto Investor Dropped Fraud Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that a purchaser of the SafeMoon crypto-token has tentatively dropped his class action lawsuit alleging its creators defrauded investors by artificially inflating the price of the tokens through false statements, according to a filing. Plaintiff Christopher Rackauckas sued SafeMoon LLC in Utah federal court in May, accusing the company of unlawfully selling the tokens by failing to register them as securities with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, costing investors millions of dollars. That lawsuit was the third with similar allegations that was brought against SafeMoon and its corporate leaders. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Transferred to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled Robert A. Mason v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01244, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 20, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06186 to the proceeding. The complaint is a class action against Samsung on behalf of individuals, in California, who purchased a defective Samsung electric or gas range with front-mounted burner control knobs that purportedly must be depressed and turned in ordered to activate the heating element of the range. The Plaintiff and Class members allegedly suffered economic injury as a result of purchasing the Samsung Ranges that have burners that repeatedly and unexpectedly turn on. They assert that the Defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, and the California Business and Professions Code due to the alleged conduct. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 401 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (714) 651-8845 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Alex R. Straus, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: amortimer@huntonAK.com SEALED AIR: Settlement Deal in UA Local 13 Suit for Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the parties involved in the UA Local 13 securities class suit inked a settlement deal that is subject for preliminary court approval. On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On June 4, 2020, the complaint was amended to remove all individual defendants other than the Company's former CFO and to add a plaintiff, and on July 13, 2020, the complaint was further amended to identify a total of four plaintiffs. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's hiring of Ernst & Young LLP as its independent auditors and concerning the Company's corporate policies and procedures. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 17, 2014 and June 20, 2019. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on June 1, 2021, the court issued a ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 15, 2021. On September 9, 2022, the parties signed a settlement agreement including a proposed settlement amount of $12.5 million and submitted it to the court for preliminary approval. Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Pages ------------------------------------------------------------- ALARIC BIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, CHERYLYNN SHUMAN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV33983 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 20, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code due to their alleged unlawful labor practices. The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages, 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 reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of shipping technician on February 2017. Representative Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants. The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company is an Ohio–based company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry.[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 SISENSE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- BRYSEN BROWN, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SISENSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 531125/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 26, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as sales representative. Sisense, Inc. provides organizations with the ability to infuse analytics everywhere, embedded in both customer and employee applications and workflows. The Company offers a the highly customizable, AI-driven analytics cloud platform, that infuses intelligence at the right place and the right time, every time. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com amaurer@outtengolden.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of SolarEdge Technologies Inc. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased SolarEdge securities between August 6, 2020 to October 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until January 3, 2023, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below into a browser: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/solaredge-technologies-inc There is no cost or obligation to you. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the designs of the power optimizers, inverters, and components thereof used to develop SolarEdge's products potentially originated with and were misappropriated from Ampt; (ii) Ampt made claims against the Company for misappropriating Ampt's patented technology, (iii) evidentiary support existed for the allegations that SolarEdge misappropriated certain patents relating to the design and development of the Company's power optimizers and inverters; (iv) as a result, SolarEdge faced a threat of regulatory and/or court action, which could prohibit the import, marketing, and sale of its power optimizers and inverters, including solar energy systems that contain such products; which in turn (v) seriously threatened SolarEdge's ability to monetize on their solar energy systems that contain the power optimizers and inverters in the United States and generate revenue; and (vi) certain revenues generated from the sale of power optimizers and inverters were potentially based on SolarEdge's unlawful activities, including the misappropriation of patented designs by Ampt. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the SolarEdge class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the SolarEdge class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] SONY CORP: Hit With Class Suit Over G Master Camera Lens Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that Sony's use of a sticker to affix the serial number to its G Master SEL1635GM F2.8 camera lens is the subject of a proposed class action filed almost two years after the company voluntarily recalled the top-of-the-line product. The 17-page lawsuit was brought by a Pomona, California resident who says he was unable to have his G Master lens repaired as part of the defect-driven recall because the sticker on which the product's serial number was affixed had fallen off. The man contends that he would not have purchased the lens, which reportedly retails for $2,199.99, or would have paid less for it, had he known defendant Sony Electronics falsely and misleadingly represented the product. "Defendant misrepresented the Product's value because the high probability the serial number sticker would become detached meant Plaintiff and consumers were deprived of the value of their purchase, through, among other things, the inability to obtain post-sale servicing in the event of a recall due to defects of design or manufacture," the lawsuit summarizes. Per the suit, Sony's G Master (Gold Master) lenses are touted as top-of-the-line products made to satisfy professional imaging, speed, efficiency and reliability requirements. The G Master lenses, which reportedly range in price from $1,500 to $2,800, are known to be more resistant to dust and water and, due to their advanced actuator technology, can supposedly operate faster and focus with greater precision when the camera is in manual or auto mode, the filing says. In November 2019, Sony voluntarily recalled its G Master SEL1635GM FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM E-mount lenses by way of a Lens Check and Repair Program. The reason for the recall, the case relays, was because the lens "may cause the camera to not operate correctly" when it is attached, including by preventing the camera's rear screen from displaying correctly. For the recall, Sony advised consumers that only lenses with serial numbers between 1800502 and 1823192 were believed to be affected, according to the case. Per the suit, Sony instructed consumers to enter their lens's serial number on its website to see if it was covered by the recall. If a lens was affected, Sony agreed to provide repairs free of charge until March 31, 2023, the lawsuit says. The plaintiff, however, takes issue with Sony's decision to affix the serial number to a lens with a small sticker plate attached to the base of the lens, apparently "an outlier among leading lens manufacturers." A picture included in the complaint purports to show that the space where the serial number was supposed to be on the plaintiff's lens is empty, which posed a problem when the man attempted to participate in the recall, the suit relays: The case stresses that camera lenses are "handled intensively by their users," causing dirt, moisture, and oils to contact the part of the lens where the serial number sticker is located. The serial number on a Sony lens can detach "within six months of intensive usage," the filing claims. "Over time, the serial number stickers on Sony lenses have a high tendency to fall off," the complaint states. "Should that happen, users of Sony lenses will not be able to receive product support, servicing, warranty coverage, nor participate in any recalls, because Sony requires the user to provide the lens' serial number." The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who bought a Sony G Master SEL1635GM F2.8 lens within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] STEPHANIE MORRIS: Fails to Pay Office Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER WINESBURG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STEPHANIE MORRIS NISSAN, LLC, STEPHANIE MORRIS, and ROBBIE HOWARD, Case No. 22-4157 (W.D. Mo., Oct. 6, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid compensation due for overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri wage laws. Ms. Winesburg was employed as an Office Manager from June 7, 2022 to September 1, 2022. During her employment, the Defendants classified the Plaintiff salary-exempt, and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Stephanie Morris is a car dealership with its principal place of business in Dallas Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hodgson MO, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: (816) 600-0137 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and – Kirk Rahm MO, Esq. RAHM, RAHM & McVAY, P.C. 511 Foster Lane Warrensburg, MO 64093 Telephone: (660) 747-5152 Facsimile: (660) 747-1242 E-mail: rahmlaw@gmail.com TRANS UNION: Dillon Suit Alleges Illegal Collection of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAHLEIA DILLON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01662-TWR-BGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, under the privacy section of its website, the Defendant states; "When you interact with us we may collect information to help identify and contact you." The Defendant admits it collects "Audio recordings as part of contact with you, for customer support or otherwise" under the "Biometric" category - meaning it measures and analyzes audio recordings to help identify callers. By using voice to help identify callers, the Defendant is determining the truth or falsity of the callers' statements, says the suit. The Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent from the Plaintiff or Class members to examine their voices or record their unique voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of their statements in alleged violation of CIPA. TRANS UNION LLC operates as global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, marketing, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com -and- Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLIE SHERMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Carlie Sherman, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trinity Teen Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-00215-SWS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, all human trafficking victims of the "troubled teen industry," brought this suit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendant owners and their recruitment agents defrauded the Plaintiffs, other putative class members, and their parents throughout the recruitment process, inducing them into paying substantial fees for residential treatment, under promises of receiving full-time cutting-edge therapies and while maintaining proper education towards high school graduation. The Defendant owners actually forced the Plaintiffs and putative class members to work without pay for periods of time lasting between months and years. The Defendant owners and/or their agents caused the Plaintiffs and the putative class members to believe that if they did not work for the Defendants, they would suffer physical or emotional abuse and prolonged confinement. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Scott W. Skavdahl on Oct. 5, 2022. The Court ruled that the commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements of Rules 23(a)(2), 23(a)(3), and 23(b)(3) are not met in this case. Consequently, class certification is not warranted. The appellate case is captioned Sherman, et al. v. Trinity Teen Solutions, et al., Case No. 22-705, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 19, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CARLIE SHERMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Bryce W. Ashby, Esq. Craig A. Edgington, Esq. Brice Moffatt Timmons, Esq. DONATI LAW FIRM 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 278-1004 - and - Nathan A. Nicholas, Esq. Michael B. Rosenthal, Esq. HATHAWAY & KUNZ 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 500 P.O. Box 1208 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Telephone: (307) 634-7723 - and - William E. Routt, III, Esq. Frank L. Watson, III, Esq. WATSON BURNS, PLLC 253 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 529-7996 Defendants-Respondents TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., are represented by: Lillian Alves, Esq. Thomas B. Quinn, Esq. Lindsey M. Romano, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 534-5160 TWITTER INC: Sued Over CEO Elon Musk's Plan to Eliminate Jobs ------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that Twitter Inc. began notifying employees affected by a far-reaching round of job cuts, and some learned they'll be paid for two months. As this was happening, the new owner, Elon Musk, said the business experienced a "massive drop" in revenue as many advertisers withdrew. After the billionaire took over and promised sweeping changes, workers around the world were checking two email addresses to find out if they still have a job, according to an internal memo sent to employees and seen by Bloomberg. An email to their work account means they've been retained. A letter in their personal inbox means they've been fired. Twitter temporarily closed offices and suspended badge access "to help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems and customer data," the memo said. Musk plans to eliminate half of Twitter's workforce to slash costs at the social media platform he acquired for $44 billion last month, people with knowledge of the matter have said. The company must also find ways to cope with interest costs on a massive debt pile. The speed of the changes is having repercussions. Twitter has already been sued for not giving proper notice of the plan to eliminate about 3,700 jobs. Some advertisers are also wary of Musk's plans to reexamine Twitter's content moderation policy. Volkswagen AG, Europe's largest carmaker, joined Pfizer Inc. and General Mills Inc. in temporarily pausing advertising on the platform. Civil Rights Groups Plan to Escalate Pressure on Advertisers (2:12 p.m.) A coalition called #StopToxicTwitter — made up of more than 60 civil rights groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and Accountable Tech — said it plans to escalate calls to Twitter advertisers that they stop buying ad space on the platform in the wake of Musk's sweeping layoffs. "We are witnessing the real-time destruction of one of the world's most powerful communication systems," said Jessica J. Gonzalez, co-CEO of Free Press, one of the advocacy groups in the coalition. "Elon Musk is an erratic billionaire who's dangerously unqualified to run Twitter." Gonzales said the groups were stepping up their campaign in response to Musk's failure to uphold his commitment to take the measures that would prevent Twitter from becoming a superspreader of racism and disenfranchisement. Color Of Change President Rashad Robinson criticized Musk for reportedly dismantling employee resource groups like Twitter Women and Blackbirds, a group for Black employees at the social media company. The groups were "critical," Robinson said, "not just for the employees, but for the communities they are connected to." Musk Addresses a Crowd in New York City (1:04 p.m.) Musk predicted Twitter could eventually become the world's most valuable company, he said at the Baron Investment Conference in New York City. He made essentially the same prediction about Tesla Inc. on its earnings call about two weeks ago. Pregnant Workers Seek Answers About Health Benefits (12:33 p.m. NY) Many workers wrote on company Slack channels and in public Twitter posts to say goodbye. They used blue heart and salute emoji to thank their colleagues. But they lacked official information about their next steps. At least two pregnant staffers who were laid off had no information about their medical benefits going forward, according to people familiar with the matter. Even the employees who survived the cuts were reeling from the way the process occurred. Read the Memo Sent to Employees (12:11 p.m. NY) Team, In an effort to place Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through the difficult process of reducing our global workforce. We recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company's success moving forward. Twitter Has 'Massive Drop in Revenue' Musk Says (10:33 a.m. NY) "Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists," Musk said in a tweet. "Extremely messed up! They're trying to destroy free speech in America." Some Employees Will Get Severance Pay for Two Months, Lawyer Says (10:26 a.m.) "It looks like employees are getting their notices and at least some will be paid until January 4," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in California. "I am pleased that Elon Musk learned something from the lawsuit we brought against him at Tesla and is making an effort to comply with the WARN Act. We filed this case preemptively to make sure a repeat of that violation did not happen." Twitter Employees Join Unions Ahead of Job Cuts (12 p.m. London) Twitter employees in the UK have been joining trade unions in an effort to better protect their employment rights during mass job cuts announced by the social media platform's new owner Elon Musk. "Twitter is treating its people appallingly," said Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, a UK-based trade union that said it has seen an influx of sign-ups from Twitter employees. Clancy called on the UK government to ensure that Twitter doesn't become a "digital P&O," referring to the ferry company that cut 800 jobs in March. "We are supporting our members at Twitter and will be working with them to defend them and their livelihoods," he added. Britain's United Tech and Allied Workers labor group also condemned the way employees were treated and encouraged Twitter workers to join. The UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service says businesses must generally consult on redundancies and inform the government's Redundancy Payments Service. An ACAS spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the situation. Ex-CEO Costolo Creates Twitter Alumni Network (11:30 a.m. London) Former Twitter Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo, who left the company in 2015, said his latest company has put together a resource for former Twitter employees who want to connect and "figure out what's next." Costolo is founder of 01 Advisors, a venture capital and advisory firm for tech startups in San Francisco. Employees Notified in Dublin (11 a.m. London) Twitter's Dublin office, which employs about 500 people, have begun notifying some employees via email, according to Irish news site RTE. Some employees in the UK also began to share on Twitter that they'd been locked out of their work systems. A representative for Twitter didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Volkswagen Tells Brands to Pause Spending (8:30 a.m. London) Volkswagen, Europe's biggest carmaker, recommended that all of its brands pause their paid activities on Twitter until further notice, according to an emailed statement. Several advertisers have tapped the brakes on placing ads on the platform until they get a clearer idea of Musk's plans. Musk has said he wants to remove some content moderation, giving rise to concerns that hate speech, misinformation and other potentially harmful material will flourish even more freely. General Mills said it's temporarily pausing advertising on Twitter, joining General Motors Co. in rethinking their presence on the platform. Twitter Sued for Mass Layoffs (10:43 p.m. SF) Twitter was sued over Musk's plan to eliminate jobs at the social-media platform, which workers say the company is doing without enough notice in violation of federal and California law. A class-action lawsuit was filed in San Francisco federal court. Employees Start Losing Email Access (9:13 p.m. SF) The company started cutting employee access to email and Slack. Some employees who were shut out of their work tools suspected their jobs were already cut, though they had received no official confirmation yet. Job Cuts Begin All told, Musk wants to cut about 3,700 jobs at San Francisco-based Twitter, people with knowledge of the matter said. The entrepreneur had begun dropping hints about his staffing priorities before the deal closed, saying he wants to focus on the core product. "Software engineering, server operations & design will rule the roost," he tweeted in early October. Security staff at Twitter's San Francisco headquarters carried out preparations for layoffs, while an internal directory used to look up colleagues was taken off line, people with knowledge of the matter said. Employees have been girding for firings for weeks. In recent days, they raced to connect via LinkedIn and other non-Twitter avenues, offering each other advice on how to weather losing one's job, the people said. Ex-Twitter engineers are also using social media to respond to former "Tweeps" looking to land jobs elsewhere. Musk has also been huddling with advisers to come up with new ways to make money from the blogging platform, including charging for verifications, which can help delineate real users from fake accounts. He's also considering reviving a long-since-discontinued short-video tool called Vine, a way to vie with popular video-sharing apps like TikTok. Another product under consideration, the New York Times reported, is paid direct messages, which would let the rank and file send private messages to high-profile users.[GN] U.S. BANCORP: Faces Buhrke Family Suit Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- THE BUHRKE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP; ANDREW CECERE; TERRY DOLAN; and JODI RICHARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09174 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S. Bancorp securities between August 1, 2019 and July 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) U.S. Bank created sales pressure on its employees that led them to open credit cards, lines of credit, and deposit accounts without consumers' knowledge and consent; (b) since at least 2015, U.S. Bank and by extension, U.S. Bancorp, was aware of such unauthorized conduct and that it was violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers; (c) U.S. Bancorp failed to properly monitor its employees from engaging in such unlawful conduct, detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers; (d) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or investigation; (e) U.S. Bancorp's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (f) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 28, 2022, the truth about U.S. Bancorp's practices was disclosed when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") issued a Consent Order and fined U.S. Bank $37.5 million for illegally exploiting consumers' personal data to open sham accounts for unsuspecting customers. On this news, the price of U.S. Bancorp stock declined 4% to close at $46.12 on July 28, 2022. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. U.S. BANCORP is a diversified financial services company that provides lending and depository services, cash management, foreign exchange and trust and investment management services. The Company also provides credit card services, mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, and leasing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Farah, Esq. Alesandra Greco, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: afarah@lowey.com agreco@lowey.com -and- Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 Facsimile: (213) 519-5876 Email: brian@schallfirm.com UNITED SERVICES: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb granted the joint stipulation to extend case schedule as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall file any class May 12, 2023 certification motion no later than: 2. The Defendant shall file its July 14, 2023 response to Plaintiff's class certification motion: 3. The Plaintiff shall file any Aug. 11, 2023 reply in support of his Motion for Class Certification by: 4. Subject to the Court's schedule Aug. 25, 2023 and availability, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set for: 5. All discovery, including Aug. 18, 2023 discovery motions shall be filed and have been heard by: 6. The Deadline for Dispositive Motion Oct. 16, 2023 Hearing is: USAA provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foYc4s at no extra charge.[CC] US FOODS: Attebery Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVEN THOMAS ATTEBERY on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US FOODS, INC. d/b/a/ US FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CECG02944, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 20, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00826 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action on a class-wide basis for: (1) failure to pay lawful wages; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse employee expenses; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and (8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. US Foods, Inc. is an American foodservice distributor.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com - and - Annie H. Chen, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-2020 Facsimile: (213) 612-2499 E-mail: annie.chen@orrick.com US STEEL: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle the Shareholder Class Action in the amount of $40 million that. Class action settlement approval is currently pending. On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint was filed in the United States District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions. Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the Delaware court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper-level manager of the company and the financial underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering of the company's common stock violated federal securities laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material information regarding the financial condition of the company. The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27, 2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class purchasing the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock dropped. The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against the same officers and also allege that certain current and former members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate control and oversight over the company and were unjustly compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly sustained. The Class Action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On September 29, 2018 the court ruled on those motions granting them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Class Action Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case. On December 31, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proceeding as a class action. The company's appeal of that decision was denied. Discovery followed and concluded. On May 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs and Class Action Defendants agreed to settle the Shareholder Class Action in the amount of $40 million to be fully funded by the company's insurers. Court approval of the class action settlement is currently pending. United States Steel Corporation is into steel works based in Pennsylvania. VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Cantinieri Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that discovery is ongoing for the putative class action captioned Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911 that alleges that the Company failed to protect the personally identifiable of the plaintiff and the proposed classes members from database breach. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney's fees and costs. The Company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April 22, 2022. As of June 15, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed but has neither been heard nor decided. Discovery is ongoing. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), provides data analytics solutions for customers in the insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services, and risk management markets in the United States and internationally. The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. WELLS FARGO: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHASE BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY D/B/A WELLS FARGO, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-015967 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 26, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY operates as a diversified financial services. The Company provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Background Check ---------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA CARDENAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; WESTCARE FOUNDATION, INC., a Nevada corporation; and WESTCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06319 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and former employees and use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and without obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated current, former, and prospective employees, seeks statutory penalties due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA. WestCare California, Inc. provides behavioral health and human services in both residential and outpatient environments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Western Union Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that a purported class suit against its Argentina unit is still pending in court. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage. Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. YALE UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Vellali, et al. --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VELLALI, NANCY S. LOWERS, JAN M. TASCHNER, and JAMES MANCINI, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan, v. YALE UNIVERSITY, MICHAEL A. PEEL, and THE RETIREMENT PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, Case No. 3:16-cv-01345-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII, and otherwise denied. The Plaintiffs bring this action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) on behalf of the Plan against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The class is "all participants and beneficiaries of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan from August 9, 2010, through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants." The plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that the defendants violated ERISA in three ways: (1) by breaching their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty (Counts I, III, and V), (2) by engaging in transactions prohibited by ERISA (Counts II, IV, and VI), and (3) with respect to Yale and Peel, by failing to monitor members of the Retirement Plan Fiduciary Committee to ensure compliance with ERISA's standards (Count VIII). (There is no Count VII.) The court has dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of the duty of loyalty in Counts I, III, and V, and the claim in Count V for the breach of the duty of prudence based on the Plan offering too many investment options to participants and the Plan failing to reduce fees with respect to several investments offered by The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of American (TIAA). Yale University is a private Ivy League research university in New Haven, Connecticut. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nnrzk2 at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Consumer Class Action Suits Target Titanium Dioxide in Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a naturally occurring white powder used to boost colors in a wide range of food and non-food consumer products, making colors look brighter and more defined. It can also be used as a white pigment, added to products to increase white opacity. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of TiO2 as a color additive in food, drugs, and cosmetics, including drugs and cosmetics intended for use around the eyes. 21 C.F.R. Sections 73.575, 73.1575, 73.2575. In food, TiO2 may be used for coloring generally, subject to two restrictions: (1) "[t]he quantity of titanium dioxide [cannot] exceed 1 percent by weight of the food" and (2) "[i]t may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated . . . unless added color is authorized by such standards." 21 C.F.R. Section 73.575(c). For drugs and cosmetics, the amount used must be consistent with "good manufacturing practice." 21 C.F.R. Sections 73.1575(c), 73.2575(b). Despite TiO2's green light from the FDA, consumers nevertheless have begun bringing putative class actions challenging the presence of TiO2 in consumer products, alleging that the presence of TiO2 makes the products unsafe. In Thames v. Mars, Inc., 3:22-cv-04145 (N.D. Cal. filed July 14, 2022), the first class-action lawsuit of its kind, the plaintiff alleged violations of consumer protection statutes based on the presence of TiO2. Following Thames, plaintiffs quickly brought three additional class-action lawsuits alleging similar claims of deception based on the presence of TiO2 in various consumer products ranging from candy to pain relievers to tampons. Thames v. Mars, Inc., 3:22-cv-04145 (N.D. Cal. filed July 14, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant materially omitted that Skittles contained TiO2, an alleged toxin known to pose health problems, and thus deceived the plaintiff into believing the candies were fit for human consumption when they were not. Mignin v. Mars, Inc., 1:22-cv-04243 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 11, 2022). In a nearly identical complaint to Thames, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant materially omitted that Skittles are unfit for human consumption because they contain TiO2. As a result of this omission, the plaintiff was injured by paying full price for the product when the candies were, in fact, worthless. Morrison v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., 3:22-cv-01276 (S.D. Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's marketing and labeling of Tylenol, which materially omitted the safety concerns associated with TiO2, misled reasonable consumers into believing that the pills were safe. Paulson v. This is L. Inc., 1:22-cv-04665 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 31, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that L. brand "100% Organic Core Tampons" misleads consumers to believe that the tampons were made entirely from cotton and/or organic ingredients when the product contains TiO2, as well as polyester and paraffin. In addition to omissions, this lawsuit challenges specific misleading statements such as "No Chlorine Bleaching and Dyes," which allegedly mislead consumers to believe there is no added coloring. Most recently, plaintiffs brought two additional lawsuits against a multinational consumer goods corporation asserting claims, like those made in Paulson, that the marketing and labeling of the company's tampon brand were misleading due to the presence of TiO2. In addition to these class-action lawsuits, since May 18, 2022, Environmental Health Advocates Inc. has filed eight nearly identical lawsuits in California state courts asserting claims for violation of California's Proposition 65 based on companies' alleged failure to warn for TiO2 in a variety of personal care and cosmetics products.[1] Takeaway This rising trend of TiO2-related litigation follows a larger consumer and regulatory focus on the presence (or risk) of contaminants and other allegedly harmful ingredients, such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and benzene. With this in mind, companies should partner with trusted counsel to review product formulations and label claims and consider long-term strategies to mitigate litigation risk. [GN] ********* 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 ***