/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 221
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Allen Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: LeClair Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Seeks More Time to Submit Class Cert. Response
535 WEST: Order on General Pretrial Mng't Entered in Altamirano
A&J II FLORAL: Faces Limon Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ADVANCE TRUCKING: Washington Suit Referred to Judge Hawley
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing of Suit Nixed
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Class Cert Bid Due April 21, 2023
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Joint Status Report Submission Date Extended
ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek to Extend Close of Fact Discovery
ANDY CONSTRUCTION: Flores Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Antitrust Case Parties Await Appeal Ruling
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: No Date Set in Bid to Junk Niewenhuis Suit
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of Suit
ARCONIC CORP: Parties in Howard Suit Await Class Status Briefing
ATBCOIN LLC: Balestra Securities Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
AXOS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Mandalevy Suit Wins Final Nod
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Loses Reconsideration Bid on July 26 Order
BANK OF AMERICA: Redaction Order on Class Cert Briefing Entered
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Gene Therapy Drug
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Exchange Act Violation
BLACKSTONE INC: Court Stays Taylor I Suit
BLACKSTONE INC: Judge Recuses from Mayberry and Taylor II Cases
BOSAL INDUSTRIES: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Suit for $3.15M
BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick's Bid for Class Certification Denied
BRAVE QUEST: Magistrate Judge to Enter Final Judgment in Merriman
CBOE GLOBAL: Court Concludes Tomasulo Suit vs Subsidiary
CIRCLE K: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Claims in Webb TCPA Suit
CLEARVIEW AI: Loevy & Loevy Wants Firm to Remain as Lead Counsel
COLONIAL LIFE: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order Entered in Seawell Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: ERISA Suit Over Denied Benefits Pending in S.D.N.Y.
COTERRA ENERGY: SEC Act Related Suit Pending in M.D. Pennsylvania
CRESUD INC: Court OKs Settlement in Shareholder Suit
DAVIS OIL: Court Certifies FLSA Class, OK's Settlement in Wells
DBI SERVICES: Jankowski Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
DRDGOLD LTD: Appeals Select Aspects of Class Action
DROPBOX INC: State Court Junks Bid to Review Dismissal of Suits
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Insulin Products-Related Suits
ELI LILLY & CO: MHI Bid to Amend Antitrust Claims Ongoing
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Faulkner's Amended Suit
FCA US: Court Denies First & Second Intervention Bids in Maugain
FIRST SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of CPGERS Shareholder Suit
FOUNDERS IWGC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Cheng
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Amends Order Granting Class Certification
GENERALI US: Order Dismissing Oglevee Travel Insurance Suit Upheld
GODADDY INC: TPCA Class Suit Pending in 11th Circuit
HALLMARK CARDS: Faces Class Action Over Promotional Text Messages
HARBOR FREIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Hammack Suit
HEALTHY PAWS: Order Modifying Case Schedule Entered in Benanav
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Minn. Fed. Court Affirms Magistrate Judge Ruling
ILLINOIS VALLEY: Magistrated Judge to Enter Final Order in Johnson
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Class Action in Oregon Court
INTEL CORPORATION: Subsidiary Faces Class Action in Argentina Court
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
IVERIC BIO: Faces Ferber Class Action
IVERIC BIO: Settlement in Micholle Suit Wins Final Nod
IVERIC BIO: Settlement in Pacheco Suit Wins Initial Approval
JACKSON, MS: Federal Judge Lifts Consent Decree on Youth Jail
JAI PRABHU: Guadarrama Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Suits in Canada Over Molded Doors
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued in South Africa Over Defective Mesh Devices
JOSEPH FINANCIAL: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
JPMORGAN CHASE: ANZ Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: BNP, Others Dismissed From Dennis Suit w/ Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: CBA Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Morgan Stanley From Dennis Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Credit Suisse Dismissed From Dennis With Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Dennis Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: NAB Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: Westpac Dismissed From Dennis Suit With Prejudice
LAKE CITY: McAllister's Bid to Certify Class OK'd
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Bid for Class Cert Filing Due November 21
MATTEL INC: Fisher-Price Sleeper Class Suits Ongoing
MCLEAN COUNTY, IL: Magistrate Judge to Enter Final Judgment in Pugh
MEGACABLE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Recurrent Service Failures
MIAMI, FL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tax Collection
MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansac Loses Class Certification Bid
MOBILITYLESS LLC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Swenson
NANTHEALTH INC: Engleman Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 10, 2023
NANTHEALTH INC: Putative Derivative Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
NCR CORP: Underpays Customer Engineers' OT Wages, Knutson Claims
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in G.K. Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Dunn, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NEWELL BRANDS INC: To Settle Pension Fund Shareholder Suit
NV5 GLOBAL: Settlement in Champlain Towers Suit Wins Final Nod
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Pacheco's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: 6994 Dawson Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Caroll, et al., Seek Final OK of Settlement
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Biometric Suit Pending in Illinois Court
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Due Dec. 5
PENNSYLVANIA: Bid to Preclude Evidence in Jennings Suit Denied
PIVOTAL RETAIL: Ward, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Installers
PRO CUSTOM: Huber Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
QUANTA SERVICES: Benton Class Action Still Pending
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Loses Bid to Junk Consolidated Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Seeks to Include Two Subclasses
REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit for Helping Lessors Raise Rent Prices
REED HEIN: Adolph, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks Leave to Re-File Bid to Decertify Class
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Certify Query for Interlocutory Review
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Suits Over CA Labor Code Violation Consolidated
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Ct. Modifies Class Cert Briefing & Schedule
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Withdraws Deal to Mediate in Kelley Suit
SINGTEL OPTUS: Data Breach Class Action Investigations Ongoing
STAR NURSING: Class Action Settlement in Massey Wins Initial Nod
TAL EDUCATION: Parties' Settlement Stipulation and Agreement OK'd
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Bell's Claims v. Criminal Justice Department
TRANS NATIONAL: McCrackin Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to Nov. 23
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Casa Libre Suit
UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Jan, 29, 2023
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Amended Complaint
US BANCORP: Settlement Deal to Resolve Class Suit Still Pending
US RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Following Data Breach
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Court OK's Settlement Deal Shareholder Suit
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: State Court Merger Case Gets Final Settlement OK
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Warren City Lawsuit Dismissed
WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Rice Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WALMART INC: Seeks Modification of Class Cert Scheduling Order
WARNER BROS: CPPB, Todorovski Class Actions Ongoing
WASTE CONNECTIONS: More Time for Class Cert. Discovery Sought
WISCONSIN: Summary Judgment Bid in Heredia v. Parole Comm'n Granted
YELP INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 19, 2023
ZENDESK INC: Faces Roe Labor Suit in California Court
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Putative Class Action Pending in Illinois
*********
3M COMPANY: Allen Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE DEAN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03685-RMG
(D.S.C., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: LeClair Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL LECLAIR, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of STEPHEN JOSEPH LECLAIR, deceased, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-03692-RMG (D.S.C., October 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury and death of Stephen Joseph
LeClair, Decedent, as a result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was
exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular
cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Seeks More Time to Submit Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
individually, and on Behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
extension of time through and including December 2, 2022, to submit
a response to Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff has consented to this extension. 3M states as follows
in support of this Motion:
Pursuant to the operative scheduling order, the Defendants'
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
currently due on November 28, 2022, the Monday after the
Thanksgiving holiday.
In light of the Thanksgiving holiday, the Defendants respectfully
request a four-day extension of time to submit their opposition to
class certification, through and including December 2, 2022.
The Plaintiff has consented to this extension. This extension will
not impact any other case deadlines. The parties are requesting
this extension in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
3M is a technology company, which manufactures industrial, safety,
and consumer products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FRAZmh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett C. Thompson, Esq.
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Nina Towle Herring, Esq.
R. Akira Watson, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (800) 852-6299
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: bthompson@corywatson.com
rlutz@corywatson.com
jtapley@corywatson.com
nherring@corywatson.com
awatson@corywatson.com
- and -
James S. Whitlock, Esq.
Gary A. Davis, Esq.
DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
21 Battery Park Avenue, Suite 206
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 622-0044
Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
E-mail: jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com
gadavis@enviroattorney.com
- and -
Ryals D. Stone, Esq.
William S. Stone, Esq.
THE STONE LAW GROUP-TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC
5229 Roswell Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 239-0305
Facsimile: (404) 445-8003
E-mail: ryals@stonelaw.com
billstone@stonelaw.com
Counsel for Defendant 3M Company are:
Robert B. Remar, Esq.
Monica P. Witte, Esq.
L. D'Ambrosio, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1105 W. Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone (404) 815-3500
E-mail: rremar@sgrlaw.com
sculpepper@sgrlaw.com
kdambrosio@sgrlaw.com
mwitte@sgrlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin P. Harmon, Esq.
Jackson R. Sharman, III, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, Esq.
M. Christian King, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN AND WHITE LLC
The Clark Building 400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
E-mail: bharmon@lightfootlaw.com
jsharman@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
cking@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP-NY
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2256
E-mail: acalica@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Craig A. Woods, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP-IL
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4637
Telephone: (312) 701-8536
E-mail: cwoods@mayerbrown.com
535 WEST: Order on General Pretrial Mng't Entered in Altamirano
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANOLITO ALTAMIRANO, v.
535 WEST 163RD STREET HDFC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03459-JLR-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management.
The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for
general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
535 West is an apartment building located in the Washington Heights
neighborhood in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E6kJfZ at no extra charge.[CC]
A&J II FLORAL: Faces Limon Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HILARIO PEREZ LIMON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&J II FLORAL CORP. d/b/a
METRO FLORAL DESIGNS and ADRIAN BENITEZ, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06491 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around June
2018 until in or around April 2022 as a flower designer and
arranger while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week throughout his employment with the Defendants.
Specifically, he worked approximately 91 hours or more hours each
week from in or around June 2018 until in or around December 2019,
approximately 65 hours or more hours each week from in or around
January 2020 until in or around December 2021, and approximately 52
hours or more hours each week from in or around January 2022 until
in or around April 2022. However, the Defendants denied him of his
legally earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only paid a flat hourly
rate of approximately $25.00 per hour regardless of the number of
hours he has worked.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant willfully failed to
keep payroll records, and willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA
and NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to provide him
with any wage statements upon each payment of his wages, as well as
with a written notice of his applicable regular rate of pay,
regular pay day, and all such information.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary and proper.
A&J II Floral Corp. d/b/a Metro Floral Designs is a florist in
Great Neck, NY. Adrian Benitez is the owner of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
ADVANCE TRUCKING: Washington Suit Referred to Judge Hawley
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. Advance
Trucking Solutions, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-01258-JES-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Court entered an order referring the case to Hon.
Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley to conduct all proceedings and
order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the Parties are notified that a United States
magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any
or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,
and to order the entry of a final judgment.
Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however,
permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.
The Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold
their consent, but this will prevent the court's jurisdiction from
being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds
consent, the identity of the parties cons nting or withholding
consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the
district judge to whom the case has been assigned, the Court says.
Advance is a Trucking, Moving & Storage, and Transportation company
located in Mississauga, Ontario.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DHpOK9 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing of Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology 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 4, 2022, that
plaintiff-appelant's petition for rehearing in the 2020 securities
action lawsuit is denied by court on August 15, 2022.
On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of
the Company's executive officers was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (later transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of its common stock.
The complaint alleged claims under the federal securities laws and
sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and
expenses incurred in the litigation.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 4, 2020
against Align and three of the Company's executive officers
alleging similar claims as in the initial complaint on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of its common stock from April 25,
2019 to July 24, 2019.
On March 29, 2021, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a
further amended complaint.
On April 22, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice stating it would
not file a further amended complaint.
On April 23, 2021, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice
and judgment was entered. Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on April 28, 2021 and filed its opening appeal brief with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September
1, 2021.
The defendants-appellees filed their answering brief on November
22, 2021.
The lead plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on January 12,
2022.
Oral argument was held on March 10, 2022.
On July 8, 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court order dismissing the complaint.
On July 21, 2022, plaintiff-appellant filed a petition for
rehearing or hearing en banc, which the court denied on August 15,
2022.
Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.
Align Technology -- https://www.aligntech.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners
used in orthodontics.[BN]
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Class Cert Bid Due April 21, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen, et al., v.
Allegiance Administrators, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03411 (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order on
motion for class certification deadlines as follows:
-- Complete Discovery Fact Discovery December 16, 2022
due by:
-- Primary Expert due by: January 13, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert due by: February 24, 2023
-- Discovery due by: March 24, 2023
-- Dispositive Motions due by: April 21, 2023
-- Class Certification Motion April 21, 2023
due by:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Joint Status Report Submission Date Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF OLBERG, an
individual, CECILIA ANA PALAO-VARGAS, an individual, MICHAEL
CLOTHIER, an individual, and JACOB THOMPSON, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation and ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, and CCC
INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00573-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C.
Coughenour entered an order extending deadline to submit joint
status report as follow:
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.
Accordingly, the deadline for the Parties to submit their joint
status report is June 17, 2022.
On June 16, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend
Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, which this Court granted on
June 17, 2022.
On September 21, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To
Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, which this Court
granted on September 22, 2022, extending the deadline to submit a
joint status report to October 21, 2022.
Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in
Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T83vD0 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
- and -
David L. Woloshin, Esq.
Dina S. Ronsayro, Esq.
ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP
200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19102
- and -
Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
AXLER GOLDICH LLC
1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
Philadelphia, PA 19102
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 -
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
- 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 -
Anusha E. Jones, Esq.
William H. Walsh, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 340-1000
Facsimile: (206) 340-1000
E-mail: wwalsh@cozen.com
aejones@cozen.com
- and -
Wendy Enerson, Esq.
Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 382-3100
E-mail: wenerson@cozen.com
pvaleta@cozen.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek to Extend Close of Fact Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA and MARK
SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(Nev. Dist.), the Parties stipulate and agree to extend the close
of fact discovery by three weeks, to November 15, 2022, for the
limited purpose of Ancestry completing its document production
consistent with the Court's order on Plaintiffs' motion to compel
and for completing the meet and confer process regarding
Plaintiffs' responses to Ancestry's discovery requests served on
September 14, 2022.
The requested extension is necessary and there is good cause for
the extension. This is the first request for an extension of the
close of fact discovery and is sought in good faith and not for
purposes of causing any undue delay. Indeed, the limited extension
of fact discovery sought will not impact any other deadline,
including class certification briefing, the Parties contend.
On May 16, 2022, the Court approved the parties' Amended Joint
Discovery Plan setting the close of fact discovery for October 25,
2022. On August 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
Ancestry's responses to requests for production.
Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UH3PKk at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
Email: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
E-mail: MRam@forthepeople.com
MAppel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: Ben@benosbornlaw.com
Counsel for ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., ANCESTRY.COM INC.,
and ANCESTRY.COM LLC are:
H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone: (702) 823-2500
Facsimile: (702) 823-3400
E-mail: sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
John W. Baumann, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5000
E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class is:
Raina C. Borrelli (Pro Hac Vice)
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
Counsel for Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Ancestry.com
Inc., and Ancestry.com LLC is:
Shon Morgan, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
ANDY CONSTRUCTION: Flores Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GABRIEL FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY CONSTRUCTION NY INC. and
BERNARDINO GONZALES, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06486 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for its alleged egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
March 2021 until in or around September 2022 as a roofer and
construction worker while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he was
regularly required by the Defendants to work approximately 84 hours
or more hours each week. However, despite working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead,
he was only paid a flat weekly rate of approximately $1,200.00 per
week from in or around March 2021 until in or around September
2022, says the suit.
Furthermore, the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records and willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL.
In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to provide the
Plaintiff with any wage statements upon each payment of his wages,
as well as with any written notice of his applicable regular rate
of pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required by
NYLL, the suit asserts.
Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
construction workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the court deems necessary and proper.
Andy Construction NY Inc. provides construction services.
Bernardino Gonzales is the owner and operator of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Antitrust Case Parties Await Appeal Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive 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
Antitrust Case parties await ruling from the Third Circuit.
On September 18, 2020, Humana, Inc., a health insurance payor,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and Indivior in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging facts similar to those at issue
in the Antitrust Case and the Suboxone MDL described above, which
lawsuit was assigned to the same judge that is presiding over
Antitrust Case and Suboxone MDL.
Humana's Complaint alleges five causes of action against the
Company, including conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, fraud under
state law, unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law,
insurance fraud, and unjust enrichment.
On September 21, 2020, Centene Corporation and other related
insurance payors filed a similar lawsuit against the Company and
Indivior in the Eastern District of Missouri.
The counsel representing Humana is also representing Centene in
this matter.
On September 21, 2020, the Centene action was provisionally
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
On January 15, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Centene and Humana complaints.
The Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed all
complaints against the defendants in these matters on July 22,
2021.
On August 20, 2021, Centene and Humana appealed the decision to the
U.S. Appeals Court for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit").
Also, on August 20, 2021, Humana filed a complaint in state court
in Kentucky, alleging the same causes of action previously filed in
the federal case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
That state court action is stayed pending resolution of the federal
appeal in the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit appeal is fully briefed and oral argument was
held on March 31, 2022.
The parties are awaiting a ruling from the Third Circuit on the
appeal.
The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate
outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or
range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this
matter.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: No Date Set in Bid to Junk Niewenhuis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive 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 there
is no date scheduled for motion to dismiss amended complaint in the
securities class action captioned Loreen Niewenhuis v. Keith
Kendall, et al.
On December 15, 2021, a purported Aquestive shareholder instituted
a derivative action captioned Loreen Niewenhuis v. Keith Kendall,
et al. in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company.
The case was designated as related to the pending federal
securities class action Deanna Lewakowski v. Aquestive
Therapeutics, Inc., referenced above, and accepted by the same
judge presiding over the securities class action.
The complaint in this matter alleges claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and contribution. The factual allegations that form the basis
of these claims are similar to the disclosure-related allegations
asserted in the class action.
On April 4, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims against the same defendants.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 25, 2022, which became fully briefed as of June 27, 2022.
There is no date set for a hearing on the motion to dismiss and no
trial date has yet been set.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive 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
plaintiffs in a class action against the company can file an appeal
on the order dismissing all their claims. The plaintiffs allege
that the company violated federal and state antitrust statutes and
state unfair trade and consumer protection law.
On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought a lawsuit against Indivior and the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.
After filing the lawsuit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL,
a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.
While the Company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the Company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.
The Company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss.
The Company filed an answer denying the States' claims on November
20, 2017.
Daubert motions were filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions
were filed on October 19, 2020.
On February 19, 2021, the Court issued an order denying all Daubert
motions.
On March 8, 2021, Aquestive filed a motion for summary judgment,
and briefing on summary judgment motions was completed on May 28,
2021.
The hearing on Aquestive's motion for summary judgment was held on
May 18, 2022 and, on October 19, 2022, the Court entered an order
dismissing all claims against the Company in the lawsuit.
The order dismissing all claims against the Company could be
appealed by the plaintiffs in this case.
The Company is not able to determine or predict whether the
plaintiffs will appeal the order or the ultimate outcome of this
proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates
of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.
ARCONIC CORP: Parties in Howard Suit Await Class Status Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corp. ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the parties in
the Howard consolidated suit await schedule for discovery and class
certification briefing.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website. The consolidated amended complaint sought, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of
attorney and expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.
On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic Corporation and the
individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a
recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance
to the pending motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020.
On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The
Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against ParentCo,
certain officers and directors and the underwriters based on the
registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the
exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before
October 23, 2015.
In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on ParentCo's statements in
other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was
dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and
allowed in part as to ParentCo. The Court also dismissed the
control-person liability claims in their entirety.
On August 11, 2021, ParentCo filed a motion with the district court
for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a stay pending
appeal.
The motion seeks to appeal the aspect of the court's June 23, 2021
opinion concerning the complaint's pleading of ParentCo's alleged
scienter. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on August
17, 2021, and ParentCo filed a reply brief on August 24, 2021.
On August 12, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the second
amended complaint.
A status conference was held before the Court on January 11, 2022
during which the Court heard arguments from both parties on the
pending motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.
On July 29, 2022, the Court denied the motion for certification of
an interlocutory appeal and ordered the parties to submit a
proposed scheduling order, which the parties jointly filed on
August 29, 2022.
The Court held a status conference on September 14, 2022, and the
parties now await an order from the Court setting the schedule for
class certification briefing and discovery.
Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of
litigation, Arconic Corporation cannot reasonably estimate at this
time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss
or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.
Arconic Corporation (ARNC) is a provider of rolled aluminum
products, extrusions, and building products. The company's end
markets consist of building and construction, industrial,
packaging, automotive, and aerospace & defense.
ATBCOIN LLC: Balestra Securities Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND
BALESTRA,individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ATBCOIN LLC, EDWARD NG, and HERBERT W. HOOVER, Case
No. 1:17-cv-10001-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote
entered an order certifying the class of:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of ATBCoin directly from ATBCoin between June 12,
2017, and September 15, 2017, inclusive and were damaged
thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are:
(i) all Defendants;
(ii) all current or former officers, directors or partners
of ATB, its affiliates, parents or subsidiaries; any
corporation, trust or other entity in which any
Defendant has or had a controlling interest;
(iii) the members of the immediate familiesofthe Individual
Defendants;
(iv) the parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of ATB;
(v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns of any excluded Person; and
(vi) any Person who timely and validly seeks exclusion from
the Class in accordance with the requirements of the
Notice.
The Court further ordered that:
-- pursuant to Rule 23(g), Fed. R. Civ. P., Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP is appointed class counsel to the class; and
-- Lead Plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment by
November 11, 2022.
ATBCOIN LLC is a cryptocurrency company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fBmZT4 at no extra charge.[CC]
AXOS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Mandalevy Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, 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 28, 2022, that a
class action settlement has been granted final approval by the
court on September 26, 2022.
On April 3, 2017, the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit, "Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al," and
brought in United States District court for the Southern District
of California.
The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period
that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that
the company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.
On December 7, 2018, the court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and
the court took the matter under advisement.
On November 3, 2020, the court issued a ruling affirming in part
and reversing in part the District court's Order dismissing the
Class Action Second Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a
petition for rehearing en banc on November 17, 2020, which petition
was denied on December 16, 2020. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the remanded complaint on February 19, 2021. On January 31,
2022, a Stipulation of Settlement was submitted to the District
court for approval.
On May 17, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval
for September 23, 2022. On September 26, 2022, the District court
entered an order granting final approval of such settlement.
Axos Financial, Inc. is a bank holding company based in Nevada.
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA WOLFF and AARON
DEVILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BACKSTREETS GRILL SC, LLC, doing business as
Backstreets Grill, and CASEY PEISSEL, individually, Case No.
3:21-cv-02800-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification as modified:
"all individuals who were employed by Backstreets at any time
within the three years prior to notice being sent in this
lawsuit, who were paid a direct, or hourly, rate less than
the minimum wage of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) per
hour and participated in a tip pool created by Backstreets."
The Court said, "At this early juncture, the substantial
allegations contained in Named Plaintiffs' Declarations, as well as
the complaint, provide a sufficient basis for the Court to
conditionally certify Named Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages,
and attorney fees under the FLSA. For clarity and consistency,
however, the Court makes a small change to Named Plaintiffs'
proposed class definition. Rather than calculating the timeframe
that a putative class member must have been employed at Backstreets
from the time that class member joins the suit, it will calculate
from the date notice is sent. This comports with the language in
the proposed notice."
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants illegally required
Backstreets' servers to participate in a tipping pool, where they
were coerced or harassed into "tipping out" back-of-house (BOH)
employees a portion of their income after each shift.
The BOH employees worked from the kitchen and had no interaction
with patrons. The Plaintiffs filed this action, and later the
instant motion for conditional certification, which included a
proposed notice. Defendants responded, and Named Plaintiffs
replied.
Backstreets Grill provides warm venue with outdoor seating,
prepping elevated eats like truffle parmesan fries & bison burgers
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UctGKi at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Loses Reconsideration Bid on July 26 Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS,
III, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Case No. 3:20-cv-01348-RSH-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 26, 2022
Order.
The Plaintiff contends that the Court erred because it did not also
dismiss the Plaintiff's individual state law claims. The Motion is
fully briefed and suitable for submission without oral argument.
To be clear, this decision is not, as Plaintiff contends,
dispositive of class certification. The Court finds only that the
claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction (i.e., the
claims of "hundreds or thousands" of absent class members would
substantially predominate the claims over which the Court has
original diversity jurisdiction.
The Court is not deciding whether Plaintiff can bring the state law
claims on behalf of a class. Rather, the Court is declining to
exercise the jurisdiction that would permit the Court to make such
a decision in the first instance.
The Court simply lacks the discretion to provide the Plaintiff with
the disposition he seeks in his Motion, which is for the Court to
decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
individual state law claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)
Bank of America 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. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NUbov7 at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Redaction Order on Class Cert Briefing Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
et al., v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01608-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order regarding redaction and sealing process for class
certification briefing as follows:
1. The sending parties will file their papers under interim
seal by the deadlines set forth above pursuant to the
Court's March 14, 2022 Order, or as otherwise applicable;
2. The sending parties will serve unredacted papers on the
receiving parties by the deadlines pursuant to the Court's
March 14, 2022 Order;
3. The sending and receiving parties will then have the
opportunity to redact the papers and exhibits, and the
receiving parties will transmit the following items to the
sending parties within four weeks of the deadlines; and
4. Within five weeks of the deadlines, the sending parties
will then file a motion to seal, along with proposed
redacted copies and highlighted copies, pursuant to the
procedure outlined in Rule 7 of the Court's Individual
Rules.
On March 14, 2022, the Court entered the Parties' Joint Letter
Motion Regarding Extension of Time for the Completion of Fact
Discovery.
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. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DzXFoq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are:
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
Sami H. Rashid, Esq.
Thomas Lepri, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
samirashid@quinnemanuel.com
thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
William A. Maher, Esq.
Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
Brant Duncan Kuehn, Esq.
DEUTSCH LLP
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10100
Telephone: (212) 382-3300
E-mail: dwollmuth@wmd-law.com
wmaher@wmd-law.com
bkuehn@wmd-law.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Arun Subramanian, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Tamar Lusztig, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Katherine M. Peaslee, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
E-mail: kpeaslee@susmangodfrey.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff The Board of Directors of the San Diego
Association of Governments, acting as the San Diego County Regional
Transportation Commission are:
Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
Ryan Q. Keech, Esq.
Noah S. Helpern, Esq.
Jason Y. Kelly, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O’BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: croth@egcfirm.com
rkeech@egcfirm.com
nhelpern@egcfirm.com
jkelly@egcfirm.com
- and -
Joseph Kiefer, Esq.
Emily T. Lilburn, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O’BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
152 West 57th Street, Suite 28S
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 413-2600
Facsimile: (212) 413-2629
jkiefer@egcfirm.com
elilburn@egcfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC are:
Robert D. Wick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
E-mail: rwick@cov.com
- and -
Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eigth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 841-1000
E-mail: aruffino@cov.com
Attorneys for Defendants Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital
Inc. are:
Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
Lara Flath, Esq.
Kamali P. Willett, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
lara.flath@skadden.com
kamali.willett@skadden.com
- and -
Gretchen M. Wolf, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
155 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 407-0700
E-mail: gretchen.wolf@skadden.com
Attorneys for Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wachovia Bank,
N.A.; Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC; and Wells Fargo Securities
LLC are:
Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
Laura Washington Sawyer, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com
lwsawyer@jonesday.com
- and -
Michael P. Conway, Esq.
JONES DAY
77 West Wacker
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 269-4145
Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
E-mail: mconway@jonesday.com
The Attorneys for Defendants The Royal Bank of Canada and RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, are:
Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
Michael M. Klotz, Esq.
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
E-mail: afrackman@omm.com
mklotz@omm.com
- and -
Sergei Zaslavsky, Esq.
Adam Walker, Esq.
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
E-mail: szaslavsky@omm.com
awalker@omm.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Capital
Group Inc., are:
Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
Grace J. Lee, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
Telephone: (212) 848-4000
Facsimile: (212) 848-7179
E-mail: adam.hakki@shearman.com
grace.lee@shearman.com
- and -
John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 616-1100
Facsimile: (415) 616-1199
E-mail: john.cove@shearman.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, are:
George E. Mastoris, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294-6700
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: gmastoris@winston.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of
America, .A., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated (including as successor in interest to Banc of America
Securities LLC), are:
Noah A. Levine, Esq.
Chris Johnstone, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Heather S. Nyong’o, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
650 California St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 796-4400
E-mail: hnyongo@cgsh.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Limited
Brad S. Karp, Esq.
Susanna M. Buergel, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
sbuergel@paulweiss.com
-and -
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Jane B. O’Brien, Esq.
Lina Dagnew, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
jobrien@paulweiss.com
ldagnew@paulweiss.com
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Gene Therapy Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical 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 28, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging
violations under the Exchange Act. Motion for class certification
was filed by the plaintiff and a trial is scheduled for April
2024.
On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President of Worldwide Research and Development and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District court in the
Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended.
The complaint alleges that the company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics
License Application (BLA) for ROCTAVIAN (formerly known as
valoctocogene roxaparvovec) by purportedly failing to disclose that
differences between the company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical
studies limited the ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support
ROCTAVIAN's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was
foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not
approve the BLA without additional data.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February
2021, dropping the Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, and
asserting that the company misled investors about the progress of
the FDA's review of its BLA for ROCTAVIAN.
On April 22, 2021, the company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On January 6, 2022, the court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. The company answered the amended complaint on
February 15, 2022. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
on October 17, 2022. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 15,
2024.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company
based in California.
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical 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 28, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging
violations under the Exchange Act. A motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was filed, which has been fully briefed.
On October 22, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
current and prior Chief Financial Officers, and its President of
Worldwide Research & Development in the United States District
court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that the company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding Folling Disease drug BMN 307 by
purportedly failing to disclose information about BMN 307's safety
profile, and by purportedly overstating BMN 307's clinical and
commercial prospects.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs. The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel on
January 10, 2022. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
March 25, 2022. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on May 25, 2022, which is fully briefed. The court has
taken the motion under submission.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company
based in California.
BLACKSTONE INC: Court Stays Taylor I Suit
-----------------------------------------
Blackstone 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 4, 2022, that the court stayed
Taylor I suit pending the attorney general's suit in Mayberry
Action.
In January 2021, certain former plaintiffs in the Mayberry Action
filed a separate action ("Taylor I"), against the Blackstone
Defendants and other defendants named in the Mayberry Action,
asserting allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Mayberry Action, and in July 2021 they amended their complaint to
add class action allegations. Defendants removed Taylor I to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
In March 2022, the District Court stayed Taylor I pending the
resolution of the AG's suit in the Mayberry Action.
The Blackstone Group Inc. is an American alternative investment
management company based in New York, New York. [BN]
BLACKSTONE INC: Judge Recuses from Mayberry and Taylor II Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone 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 4, 2022, that the judge
presiding the Taylor II and Mayberry cases recused himself and
reassigned to another Franklin County Circuit Court judge.
In August 2021, a group of KRS members—including those that filed
Taylor I—filed a new action in Franklin County Circuit Court
("Taylor II"), against the Blackstone Defendants, other defendants
named in the Mayberry Action, and other KRS officials.
The filed complaint is substantially similar to that filed in
Taylor I and the Mayberry Action. Motions to dismiss are pending.
In May 2022, the presiding judge recused himself from the Mayberry
Action and Taylor II and the cases were reassigned to another judge
in the Franklin County Circuit Court.
The Blackstone Group Inc. is an American alternative investment
management company based in New York, New York. [BN]
BOSAL INDUSTRIES: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Suit for $3.15M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave LaChance, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that Three
Tier 1 suppliers have agreed to pay $3.15 million to settle claims
that they conspired together to artificially raise and fix the
price of vehicle components.
Included in the settlement are Bosal Industries and Bosal USA;
Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC; and ZF TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp., ZF Friedrichshaven AG, and Lucas Automotive GmbH,
now known a ZF Active Safety GmbH.
The settlement covers electronic braking systems, such as anti-lock
braking systems (ABS), hydraulic braking systems, and exhaust
systems. Those who may be eligible for compensation include
residents of 30 states and the District of Columbia who purchased
or leased a new vehicle in the U.S. between 2002 and 2018 or who
paid to replace one or more qualifying vehicle parts.
The states include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 7, 2023, according to the settlement
website, www.autopartsclass.com. The final approval hearing for the
auto parts antitrust settlement is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2023.
Only vehicle owners, or individuals who purchased parts for their
vehicles, are eligible to participate in the settlement, according
to the court-approved settlement administrator. The agreement does
not apply to repairers, a representative confirmed for Repairer
Driven News.
This is the fifth round of an auto parts class action settlement
resolving antitrust allegations involving more than 70 Tier 1 parts
suppliers.
The companies were named in several coordinated antitrust class
action lawsuits, each targeting a particular class of components.
Together with the most recent round, settlement funds of
approximately $1.2 billion have been approved. Although the
defendants have agreed to settle, they do not agree that they
engaged in any wrongdoing.
The administrator estimates that each member of the settlement
classes who submits a valid claim will receive a payment of at
least $100 from their claims across all five settlements. The
minimum payment is per claimant, and not per vehicle.
The companies' conduct was the subject of an investigation by the
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. As of May 2018,
the investigation into "widespread collusion" on prices had yielded
more than $2.9 billion in fines and convictions of 46 corporations
and 32 executives, the DoJ said.
Although the companies had been punished by federal authorities,
consumers argued they were owed compensation directly from the
companies and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan seeking compensation for alleged overpayment
for car parts and vehicles.
According to the administrator, payments to members of the Round 5
settlement classes "only will be made if the Court approves the
Round 5 Settlements and after any appeals from such approval are
resolved and in accordance with the proposed revised Plan of
Allocation to distribute the Round 5 Net Settlement Funds."
Fifth-round class members who submitted a claim during rounds one
through four do not need to file another claim form. The deadline
for exclusion and objection is Dec. 20, 2022.
Copies of the settlement agreements and more information about the
settlements are available on the Court Documents page of
www.autopartsclass.com.
For more information, write to Auto Parts Settlements, P.O. Box
10163, Dublin, OH 43017-3163, send an email to
info@AutoPartsClass.com, or call 877-940-5043. Those who file a
claim will be notified of any future information concerning these
cases. [GN]
BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick's Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS FITZPATRICK, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BOSTON
MARKET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 21 Civ. 9618 (PAE)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court held an on-the-record conference, principally addressing
Boston Market's anticipated motion for summary judgment. This
motion would be based on the ground that, since 2004, the New York
City Department of Labor ("DOL") has purportedly exempted Boston
Market from compliance with the requirement of New York Labor Law
Section 191.1a(ii) to pay workers on a weekly basis.
For the reasons discussed in the conference, Judge Engelmayer
denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class
certification, which all parties agree need not be resolved until
the defense's summary judgment motion has been resolved. The denial
is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to move anew for
class certification following summary judgment. The Clerk of Court
is respectfully requested to terminate the motion pending at Dkt.
27.
The Court gives Boston Market until Dec. 16, 2022, to complete
document discovery from DOL with respect to the exemption. It
expects Boston Market to proceed with urgency to obtain admissible
evidence from the DOL of the exemption it claims to have received
in 2004, whether in the form of a certification of public records
under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), an attestation from a qualified records
custodian at DOL authenticating a record to this effect, an
affidavit by a percipient official at DOL to the same effect, or
otherwise.
The Court also gives the Plaintiffs until Jan. 13, 2023, to
complete its discovery into the exemption, including, if sought, a
deposition of pertinent DOL official(s).
The Court expects DOL to comply with dispatch with any proper
subpoena or request for testimony on the discrete point at issue:
whether and when it granted Boston Market the exemption in
question. Should either party's request for discovery from DOL on
this point be met with non-compliance, the counsel immediately are
to notify the Court, which will schedule an emergency conference,
which counsel for DOL will be ordered to attend.
A joint letter from the parties is due Jan. 27, 2023, with respect
to the future course of the case, including whether the Plaintiffs,
if by then furnished admissible evidence establishing that the
exemption was granted as Boston Market has represented, intend to
move to dismiss the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mm8d39j6 from Leagle.com.
BRAVE QUEST: Magistrate Judge to Enter Final Judgment in Merriman
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merriman v. Brave Quest
Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01350-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Court
entered an order referring the case to Hon. Magistrate Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley to conduct all proceedings and order the entry
of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(c) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the Parties are notified that a United States
magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any
or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,
and to order the entry of a final judgment.
Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however,
permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.
The Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold
their consent, but this will prevent the court's jurisdiction from
being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds
consent, the identity of the parties cons nting or withholding
consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the
district judge to whom the case has been assigned, the Court says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DK724O at no extra charge.[CC]
CBOE GLOBAL: Court Concludes Tomasulo Suit vs Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets 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 4, 2022, that the putative
class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange Inc. has
concluded because plaintiffs failed to file writ of certiorari
petition deadline set by the Supreme Court on October 25, 2022.
On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.
A number of similar putative class actions, some of which did not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.
On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The claims asserted against the Company consisted of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs requested a judgment
awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as
punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment
interest, costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses
and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019.
The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019.
On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company. The state law
negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims
were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended
complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.
On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.
On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company’s second motion to
dismiss and all counts against the Company were dismissed with
prejudice.
On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.
On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ("7th Circuit"), seeking to
appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final
judgment and both orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss
entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief
with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc.,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association
filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the
Commodity Exchange Act's Bad Faith standard with the 7th Circuit
and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with
the 7th Circuit.
Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020.
On July 27, 2022, as amended on July 28, 2022, the 7th Circuit
issued its decision affirming the dismissal of all counts against
the Company by the federal district court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
Plaintiffs had until August 10, 2022 to petition the 7th Circuit
for a rehearing en banc.
Plaintiffs did not file a petition by this deadline. Plaintiffs had
until October 25, 2022, to file a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs did not file a petition by
this deadline. This case is now concluded.
CBOE Global Markets, Inc., is a leading provider of market
infrastructure and tradable products, delivers cutting-edge
trading, clearing and investment solutions to market participants
around the world.
CIRCLE K: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Claims in Webb TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Steve Webb, Plaintiff v. Circle K Stores Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. CV-22-00716-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz.), Senior District
Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona denies Circle K's motion to strike class allegations.
Mr. Webb filed this putative class action alleging Circle K sent
him unsolicited text messages and, in doing so, violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). He alleges Circle K
started sending unsolicited text messages to his cellular phone in
February 2021. In April 2021, he sent a message to Circle K
attempting to opt-out of additional messages. Approximately one
year later, the Plaintiff received additional text messages. In
addition to being unsolicited, those text messages allegedly did
not contain information required by the TCPA.
In April 2022, the Plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and a "Do Not Call" class consisting of individuals who asked
Circle K to be removed from the calling list but continued to
receive text messages. He also seeks to sue on behalf of himself
and a "Seller Identification" class of individuals who received
text messages that did not contain all the information required by
the TCPA.
The complaint contains exact definitions of two classes the
Plaintiff seeks to represent.
The "Do Not Call" class is defined in the complaint as: All persons
within the United States who, within the four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint, were sent a text message from Defendant
or anyone on Defendant's behalf, to said person's cellular
telephone number after making a request to Defendant to not receive
future text messages.
And the "Seller Identification" class is defined as: All persons
within the United States who, within the four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification,
(1) received two or more text messages within any 12-month period,
(2) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (3) to
said person's residential telephone number, (4) that did not
disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the person
or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone
number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted.
Circle K responded to the complaint by moving to strike some of the
"class allegations." It does not dispute any aspect of the proposed
definition for the "Seller Identification" class. However, it
argues the proposed definition for the "Do Not Call" class is so
flawed that no class could ever be certified under that exact
definition. Therefore, it argues the Court should "strike" all the
allegations connected to the "Do Not Call" class. The Plaintiff
opposes the motion, arguing the class definition at issue is
appropriate despite Circle K's arguments.
Judge Silver holds that the parties' briefing is based on an
incorrect assumption that the class definition contained in a
complaint dictates the precise contours of the class that may be
certified. She says a complaint's class definition does not have
that effect. There is no rule that the definition of a certified
class must exactly match the definition contained in a complaint.
Circle K does not address this basic rule nor does it explain why
potential flaws with the class definition in the complaint
necessarily prevent the case from proceeding as a putative class
action. The alleged flaws Circle K identifies in the complaint's
definition do not support Circle K lacking notice of the claim
being raised. Rather, the alleged flaws are minor issues that, if
they exist, can easily be remedied at the certification stage. The
proper stage for fine-tuning the class definition is certification,
not pleading.
Hence, Judge Silver denies Circle K's motion to strike the class
allegations and orders Circle K to answer the complaint.
A scheduling order is already in place. The parties will comply
with the dates in that order. However, the current scheduling order
contains inaccurate information regarding the Court's discovery
dispute procedures. Should a discovery dispute arise, the parties
must comply with the Court's procedures outlined on the website. In
addition, the current deadline for dispositive motions is Aug. 28,
2023. The parties may not file such motions prior to the interim
conference set for Aug. 10, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrprvhs8 from Leagle.com.
CLEARVIEW AI: Loevy & Loevy Wants Firm to Remain as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Loevy &
Loevy, a Chicago law firm representing plaintiffs in some of the
largest class actions under the state's biometrics privacy law, is
asking a judge to preserve a key client relationship because they
said one of its former attorneys is working to exclude the firm
from getting paid in connection with that litigation.
Earlier this month, the Loevy firm led a case to trial that secured
a $228 million verdict in favor of about 45,000 truck drivers who
sued railroad operator BNSF, over alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Attorneys Michael
Kanovitz and Jon Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy, were part of the legal
team representing the truckers. The verdict was the first of its
kind in any of the thousands of BIPA-related class action lawsuits
filed in state court in Illinois.
Kanovitz, along with attorneys Scott Drury and Andrew Miller, also
have worked with plaintiffs on a BIPA-related class action against
tech firm Clearview AI. That action involves allegations the New
York-based facial recognition technology company violated BIPA when
it scraped more than three billion photographs posted online, then
used artificial intelligence algorithms to scan facial geometry,
harvesting unique biometric identifiers to build databases it then
sold to retailers, law enforcement agencies and others.
In connection with that case, Kanovitz and Jon Loevy filed a motion
Oct. 22 with U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman seeking
clarification "the court intended to appoint Loevy & Loevy as lead
class counsel, as opposed to the individual lawyers who at the time
worked at the firm."
On Sept. 23, according to the motion, "with discovery winding down
and settlement negotiations picking up," Drury resigned from Loevy
& Loevy and directed the firm to "immediately withdraw from the
case. This was presumably so that any resulting attorneys' fee
would come to his new firm," named Drury Law.
In a statement emailed to The Cook County Record, Drury responded
to the Loevy & Loevy brief, saying: "I strongly dispute the various
assertions made by my former firm in its motion. I look forward to
filing my own robust response on November 1 as ordered by the
Court, which will rebut the motion and set the record straight. At
all times, I have represented the best interests of my clients and
putative class members. Presently, it would not serve their best
interests for me to try to condense or preview my response in a
brief statement."
The attorney fees at stake could be massive. Class actions against
big tech companies for alleged BIPA violations on platforms like
Google, Facebook and TikTok, have resulted in settlements ranging
from $90 million to as much as $650 million. Attorneys have claimed
from 15% to 35% of BIPA settlements in fees.
Attorneys that led a recent $100 million settlement with Google
will receive $35 million in fees. And the lawyers in charge of the
$650 million Facebook BIPA settlement walked away with $97.5
million.
It is unknown at this point how much Loevy & Loevy would receive
from the $228 million verdict against BNSF, presuming the verdict
is upheld on appeal.
Loevy & Loevy said it urged Drury to let it finish the BNSF trial
before addressing the Clearview representation matter with Judge
Coleman. But instead Drury allegedly responded by ordering all
Loevy & Loevy lawyers to withdraw within 48 hours or he would
initiate proceedings for disobeying client directive. Coleman
conducted a hearing on the dispute Oct. 14, at which Loevy & Loevy
said she clarified Drury's role in the litigation as a former
employee of the firm.
"The conclusion that Mr. Drury is putting his own economic
self-interest above that of the class is unavoidable," the firm
stated. "Put simply, there is no universe where the class is better
served by firing (Loevy & Loevy). . . . Drury's ill-conceived
power-grab should be rejected."
Despite concerns about his tactics, Loevy & Loevy clarified it
wasn't seeking to have Drury tossed from the case. It called him "a
skilled attorney who has been very involved in the litigation to
date" and expressed hope Drury would continue the work done over
the past two years under the firm's senior partners. However, it
continued, given the firm's experience with BIPA litigation,
including success in the BNSF trial, Loevy & Loevy insisted it
remain lead class counsel.
The case against Clearview dates back to late 2019. At that time,
Miller, who works in Loevy & Loevy's privacy division, started
investigating Clearview through use of Freedom of Information
Act-obtained documents.The firm said that advance work made it
positioned to file a lawsuit shortly after a January 2020 New York
Times article on Clearview's business practices.
Loevy was among several firms and legal organizations to sue
Clearview over the alleged illegal face scans. Those similar cases
have been consolidated by the court into a single class action
proceeding.
Loevy & Loevy asserted Kanovitz was "instrumental in creating the
complaint," and including "the novel and creative civil rights
claims."
In contrast, they said Drury was new to the firm when Miller began
his work on Clearview.
Drury eventually was responsible for day-to-day litigation. Miller
also has since left the firm, but the motion said he had "a lead
role in drafting the motion and the reply in support of preliminary
injunction."
The firm further noted Drury wasn't mentioned individually in its
motion to be named interim lead class counsel, which Coleman
approved in August 2020.
In February, Coleman rejected Clearview's motion to dismiss the
majority of the underlying complaint.
Loevy & Loevy said that led Clearview to reach out to Drury
directly in July regarding settlement, including flying an attorney
to Chicago for a meeting. Loevy & Loevy said it only learned of
these conversations by speaking to Clearview's lawyers after
Drury's resignation.
Clearview and its executives have been represented in the action by
attorneys Precious S. Jacobs-Perry, Howard S. Suskin and Andrew J.
Lichtman, of the firm of Jenner & Block, of Chicago and New York;
and Floyd Abrams and Joel Kurtzberg, of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, of
New York.
"Like all of the firm's cases, this one was assigned to a firm
attorney with primary responsibility, but the firm took seriously
its appointment as lead class counsel and very much considered it a
case of the firm," Loevy & Loevy said in its motion. "And in any
event, every hour Mr. Drury billed while on the firm's payroll is
an hour that belongs on the firm's side of the ledger, not Mr.
Drury's."
Drury came to Loevy & Loevy after three years in the Illinois House
of Representatives and a failed bid in the 2018 Democratic primary
to replace outgoing Attorney General Lisa Madigan. He has worked as
an adjunct law professor at Northwestern University and previously
worked as an assistant U.S. attorney.
In asking Coleman to clarify it, not Drury, is the formal lead
Clearview class counsel, Loevy & Loevy said Drury persuaded another
client to follow him to his new firm.
"That other client is the lead class member in seven different
other class actions filed against IBM, Google, Amazon, Microsoft
and others," according to the motion. "By any fair accounting, that
is a lot of complex class action lawsuits for a single lawyer to
litigate against some of the biggest defense firms in the country.
It would hardly be optimal for the Clearview class to be
represented by a single lawyer whose attention will be so
divided."
Loevy & Loevy said it has already replaced Drury with Tom Hanson,
"who has 20-plus years of relevant complex litigation experience"
and further argue Drury had only "pretextual excuses" for his
resignation. That said, "while there are obviously bad feelings
about how this has gone down, L&L is committed to putting all of
that to the side and continuing to work with Mr. Drury in the best
interests of the class" so long as Drury isn't named co-lead
counsel. It accused him of "politicking to try to stay on as
co-lead counsel as part of a newly-formed coalition" of firms that
failed at earlier attempts to become class counsel.
"Even conceding that the new members of Mr. Drury's apparent
coalition are also undoubtedly very experienced, that hardly means
that four leads is more optimal than one" according to the motion.
"Negotiations and trials are particularly ill-suited for
co-leadership where, as here, there are trust issues and prospects
for power struggles. L&L is well qualified to serve as lead
counsel, and based on the court's comments at the prior hearing,
that was the result the court intended."
Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report. [GN]
COLONIAL LIFE: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order Entered in Seawell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY R. SEAWELL, III and
KATHRYN D. SEAWELL, v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00278-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Bradley
Murray entered a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (Phase I) as follows:
1. Issues Subject to Discovery
The issues subject to Phase I discovery are the following:
"Discovery will be needed on Plaintiffs' claims, the
appropriateness of the case for class treatment,
Defendant's Defenses, and the damages claimed by the
Plaintiffs."
2. Discovery Completion
All Phase I class certification (and other above-listed)
discovery is to be completed on or before October 31, 2023.
3. Initial Disclosures
The initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)
have been exchanged (see Doc. 25) or are to be exchanged by
not later than November 15, 2022.
4. Amendments to Pleadings and Joinder of Parties
Motions for leave to amend the pleadings or to join other
parties must be filed not later than January 27, 2023 by
Plaintiffs and by the Defendant not later than February 24,
2023.
5. Expert Testimony
Class certification expert reports (and any other pertinent
expert reports) as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) & (C) shall
be produced by Plaintiffs on or before July 17, 2023 and by
the Defendant on or before September 15, 2023. Rebuttal
evidence, authorized by Rule 26(a)(2)(D), shall be
disclosed on or before September 15, 2023 by Defendant and
on or before October 16, 2023 by Plaintiffs.
6. Class Certification Motion
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be
filed not later than December 15, 2023. The Defendant's
response in opposition to class certification is to be
filed not later than February 15, 2024, with Plaintiffs'
reply due on or before March 15, 2024.
Colonial Life is an American insurance company based in Columbia,
South Carolina. The company offers disability, accident, life,
cancer, critical illness and hospital confinement insurance plans
in 49 states.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UqNyJi at no extra charge.[CC]
CONSOL ENERGY: ERISA Suit Over Denied Benefits Pending in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consol Energy 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 judge has not
yet issued ruling on the ERISA-related suit that alleges violation
in the termination of retiree health care benefits.
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan
Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the Company's Chief
Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.
Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.
The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new
plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and
eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt
to expand the class of retirees.
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts.
On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class
certification.
The Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021.
No ruling has been issued by the judge.
The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.
CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
COTERRA ENERGY: SEC Act Related Suit Pending in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coterra Energy 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 4, 2022, that the class action
lawsuit Delaware County Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corp.,
et. al is pending at the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In October 2020, a class action lawsuit styled Delaware County Emp.
Ret. Sys. v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Pennsylvania), was filed against the Company,
Dan O. Dinges, its then Chief Executive Officer, and Scott C.
Schroeder, its Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the Company
made misleading statements in its periodic filings with the SEC in
violation of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
The plaintiffs allege misstatements in the Company's public filings
and disclosures over a number of years relating to its potential
liability for alleged environmental violations in Pennsylvania. The
plaintiffs allege that such misstatements caused a decline in the
price of the Company's common stock when it disclosed in its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019 two notices of violations from the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection and an additional decline when it
disclosed on June 15, 2020 the criminal charges brought by the
Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
related to alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams
Law, which prohibits discharge of industrial wastes.
The court appointed Delaware County Employees Retirement System to
represent the purported class on February 3, 2021.
In April 2021, the complaint was amended to include Phillip L.
Stalnaker, the Company's then Senior Vice President of Operations,
as a defendant. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest and
attorney's fees.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Coterra Energy Inc. (NYSE: CTRA)
operates as a diversified energy company.
CRESUD INC: Court OKs Settlement in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Cresud Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2022, that in June 2022, the court
approved a settlement in a class action filed by the parties.
Closing arguments are yet to be submitted.
On October 3, 2018, a motion was initiated by an applicant alleging
to hold shares in DIC, against IDBD, Dolphin IL, and Mr. Eduardo
Elsztain seeking an injunction to annul the sale of shares of DIC
to Dolphin and to appoint a trustee to hold those shares while the
action is pending. The applicant claims that the sale was not in
compliance with the provisions of the Concentration Law and the
applicant is seeking an order for payment of monetary damages to
the shareholders of DIC of between NIS 58 and 73 million. In
addition, and following its liquidation process, IDBD was removed
from the claim by the applicant.
On March 3, 2019, a response to the motion initiated by the
applicant was submitted by the respondents. On March 4, 2019, the
court decided to grant the Attorney General a 45 day in which to
decide whether he would be taking part of the proceedings. On June
26, 2019, the Attorney General's stance was submitted, announcing
that he will be taking part in the proceedings. In addition, the
Attorney General noted that due to the threshold arguments awaiting
a ruling from the court, at this stage, he will not be his position
on the proceedings. On July 2, 2019, the court ruled that, in the
event that the Attorney General chooses to submit his position to
the court, he must do so in writing and no later than August 8,
2019. On July 17, 2019, the applicant submitted an evidential
disclosure request. On September 23, 2019, the respondents
submitted a motion deemed "resistance to the evidential disclosure
request," and on December 15, 2019, the applicant submitted his
response to the Respondent´s motion. On December 31, 2019, the
court decided that, in order to rule on the evidential disclosure
request, it must first rule on existing threshold arguments
request. Therefore, the court set a schedule in which the Parties
must submit their stance regarding the threshold arguments.
On January 20, 2020, the respondents submitted a notice regarding
their threshold arguments, and on February 10, 2020, the applicant
submitted his stance regarding the respondents notice. On March 18,
2020, the Attorney General submitted a notice pursuant to which he
informed that he will not be taking a stance regarding the
threshold arguments. On May 12, 2020, the respondents submitted
their response to the applicant's response to their notice
regarding the threshold arguments. On August 10, 2020, the court
held a hearing with the Parties regarding the threshold arguments.
On November 30, 2020, the court ruled that the motion should not be
dismissed, and that all claims of the Parties are maintained. In
addition, the court further ruled that as long as the controversial
matter concerns the violation of the Concentration Law, the
respondents are correct in claiming that the applicant, who holds
Second Layer company shares, is not eligible to file a motion under
the Concentration Law.
On January 19, 2021, the applicant filed an amended evidential
disclosure request. On February 11, 2021, the respondents submitted
a response to the amended request denying the applicant's claims,
and, on February 18, 2021, the applicant submitted his response. On
April 9, 2021, the court denied the amended request ruling that the
applicant must pay the respondents' request expenses in the amount
of NIS 6,500. On November 4 and 24, 2021, two evidence hearings
were held pursuant to cross-examining the expert appointed on
behalf of the applicant and the applicant himself.
On May 29, 2022, a third evidence hearing was held on the motion
pursuant to which the witnesses, on behalf of the respondents, were
cross-examined. On June 14, 2022, the court approved the settlement
agreed by the Parties, pursuant to which the applicant would be
submitting his closing arguments no later than November 1, 2022,
with the respondents submitting their closing arguments no later
than February 28, 2023.
Cresud Inc. is an agricultural company engaged in the production of
basic agricultural commodities based in Argentina.
DAVIS OIL: Court Certifies FLSA Class, OK's Settlement in Wells
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WELLS, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVIS OIL CO. and
C-STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00281-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Jane M. Beckering entered an order certifying the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class and approving the Settlement,
including the proposed Service Award, and the proposed attorneys'
fees and expense reimbursements to Class Counsel.
The action asserts wage-and-hour claims under the FLSA. On March
25, 2022, the Representative Plaintiff Melissa Wells filed this
action as a collective action under the FLSA
Accordingly, the Defendants engaged in an improper time-shaving
practice, whereby the Defendants improperly modified Plaintiffs'
reported work time and failed to pay wages in violation of
applicable law. The Defendants deny the claims brought by
Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hd2rQX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMER SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17 th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Courtney L. Nichols, Esq.
PLUNKETT COONEY
38505 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 594-6360
E-mail: cnichols@plunkettcooney.com
DBI SERVICES: Jankowski Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD JANKOWSKI v. DBi
Services, LLC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01833-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
consisting of:
"the Plaintiff and all other former employees nominally
employed by DBi Services, who worked at or reported to any
United States facility, operated by Defendant, including but
not limited to those located at:
-- 8 West Broad Street, Suite 216, Hazleton, Pennsylvania;
-- 100 North Conahan Drive, Hazleton, Pennsylvania;
-- 6209 Bowdendale Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida;
-- Shady Lane No. B, Kissimmee, Florida;
-- 7940 Gainsford Ct, Bristow, Virginia;
-- 4723 Pinemont Drive, Houston, Texas;
-- 1601 Capital Avenue, Plano, Texas;
-- 1801 Webber Street, Lufkin, Texas;
-- 7442 Shipley Avenue, Harmans, Maryland;
-- 137 East Williams Street, Albert Lea, Minnesota,
where 50 or more employees, excluding part-time employees (as
defined under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
("WARN") Act, 29 were terminated without cause on their part on or
about October 21, 2021, or within ninety days of date or thereafter
as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, an
alleged mass layoff and/or plant closing (as defined by the WARN
Act) at the Facilities and who do not file a timely request to
opt-out of the class."
The Plaintiff also seeks:
(a) their appointment as the Class Representative,
(b) the appointment of Margolis Edelstein as Class Counsel,
(c) the approval of the form and manner of Notice to the
Class, and
(d) such other and further relief as this Court may deem
proper
DBi provides infrastructure maintenance, management, and operations
solutions to government agencies, railways, utilities, and private
industries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UacWDp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Miller, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
The Curtis Center, 4th Floor, 6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 922-1100
Facsimile: (215) 922-1772
- and -
James E. Huggett, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 888-1112
Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
DRDGOLD LTD: Appeals Select Aspects of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2022, that an appeal was filed against
certain aspects of a class action filed by former mineworkers and a
hearing is set in November 2022.
On May 3, 2018, former mineworkers and dependents of deceased
mineworkers and Anglo American South Africa Limited, AngloGold
Ashanti Limited, Sibanye Gold Limited, Harmony Gold Mining company
Limited, Gold Fields Limited, African Rainbow Minerals Limited and
certain of their affiliates settled the class certification
application in which the applicants in each sought to certify class
actions against gold mining houses cited therein on behalf of
mineworkers who had worked for any of the particular respondents
and who suffer from any occupational lung disease, including
silicosis or tuberculosis.
The fund managing the compensation for the Applicants has started
disbursing funds to the claim beneficiaries. The DRDGOLD
respondents, DRDGOLD Limited and East Rand Proprietary Mines
Limited, are not a party to the settlement between the applicants
and settling companies and the settlement agreement is not binding
on the DRDGOLD Respondents.
The dispute, insofar as the class certification application and
appeal thereof is concerned, still stands and has not terminated in
light of the settlement agreement. In terms of the class action,
the DRDGOLD respondents has lodged an appeal against certain
aspects of the class action, inter alia the extension of the remedy
entertained in the class action, and the inclusion of tuberculosis
as a basis for liability. The Appeal record has been finalized and
the allocation of a date for the hearing of the Appeal is November
11, 2022.
DRDGOLD Ltd. is a South African company that holds assets engaged
in surface gold tailings retreatment including exploration,
extraction, processing and smelting.
DROPBOX INC: State Court Junks Bid to Review Dismissal of Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dropbox 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 4, 2022, that the Supreme Court of
California has denied the petition of plaintiff to review the four
consolidated putative class action lawsuits that were dismissed on
December 4, 2020.
The California state court litigation consolidated four putative
class action lawsuits that were filed on August 30, 2019, September
5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of its
IPO, and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated
entities (collectively, the "Dropbox Defendants").
On May 11, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated state court case based on the exclusive federal
forum provisions contained in the Company's amended and restated
bylaws.
On December 4, 2020, the state court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated state court case.
On December 15, 2020, the state court plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of this order.
On May 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the State Court of
California affirmed the order dismissing the state court case.
The plaintiff petitioned the California Supreme Court for review
(which is discretionary) and the Court denied the plaintiff's
petition for review on August 10, 2022.
The Company believes the appeal and claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software.
The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share
files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves
customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Insulin Products-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & 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 the company continues
to defend several class action suits related to the company's
insulin products.
In December 2017 and February 2018, the Company, along with Sanofi
and Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in a consolidated
purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation
and in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis
U.S. LLC et al., both filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The cases relate to insulin pricing and seek damages or other
relief under various theories, including state consumer protection
laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO
Act).
In both cases, the court dismissed claims under the federal RICO
Act and certain state laws.
In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation
amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for
civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes.
The court allowed the Arizona RICO statute and certain state civil
conspiracy law claims to proceed.
Additionally in 2020, the Company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk,
CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a putative class
action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., filed in
the same court, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as
well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law.
The same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United
Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions
in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., which were
both initiated in March 2020, with the plaintiffs seeking damages
for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act.
In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC
v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et
al.
In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs
in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the federal
RICO Act claims.
In October 2018, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office initiated
litigation against the Company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of
Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking damages for unjust
enrichment, violations of various Minnesota state consumer
protection laws, and the federal RICO Act. In March 2021, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with
prejudice the Minnesota Attorney General's federal RICO claims and
false advertising claims under state law; the consumer fraud and
other related state law claims remain ongoing.
Additionally, in May 2019, the Kentucky Attorney General's Office
filed a complaint against the Company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk,
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al., in Kentucky
state court, alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer
protection law, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.
In June 2021, the Mississippi Attorney General's Office initiated
litigation against the Company, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk,
Evernorth/ESI, CVS/Caremark, and United/Optum in the Hinds County,
Mississippi Chancery Court, alleging state law consumer protection,
unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. After the case was
removed to federal court, the Company, along with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was
denied. This matter is ongoing.
In May 2022, the state of Arkansas filed suit against the Company,
Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, ESI, CVS/Caremark/Aetna, and Optum, asserting
state law consumer protection, civil conspiracy, and unjust
enrichment claims. The case has been removed to federal court and
is ongoing.
In September 2022, the County of Albany, New York filed a suit
against the Company, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Evernorth/ESI,
CVS/Caremark and United/Optum asserting violations of federal RICO
statute and state law claims for deceptive trade practices, unjust
enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ELI LILLY & CO: MHI Bid to Amend Antitrust Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & 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 motion of Mosaic
Health, Inc. to amend the alleged antitrust and unjust enrichment
claims is ongoing.
In July 2021, the Company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC
(Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, were named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and
unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B
distribution programs.
The Company, with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in September 2022.
In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
their complaint. This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It offers a wide range
of endocrinology, neuroscience, immunology and oncology products.
Eli Lilly and Company primarily has collaborations with Incyte
Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AC Immune
SA; Centrexion Therapeutics Corporation; ImmuNext, Inc.; and
Avidity Biosciences, Inc., as well as AbCellera Biologics Inc. The
Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis,
Indiana.
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Faulkner's Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COLLEEN FAULKNER, et al., Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22cv242 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part Equinox's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
On Jan. 11, 2022, Colleen Faulkner and Quinn Tew brought individual
and putative class action claims against Equinox, alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C
Sections 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law,
Executive Law Section 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City
Human Rights Law, the Administrative Code of the City of New York
Section 8-107 et seq. ("NYCHRL"). Equinox moved to dismiss the FAC
on May 6.
On Oct. 28, 2022, the Court held an initial pretrial conference.
For the reasons stated on the record at conference, Judge Cote
granted in part and denied in part the motion.
Equinox's motion to dismiss, stay, or consolidate the action under
the rule against claim-splitting is denied. Further, its motion to
dismiss is denied as to the following claims: Faulkner's class
action claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL; Faulkner's
individual retaliation claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the
NYCHRL; and Tew's individual pregnancy discrimination claim under
Title VII.
The motion to dismiss is granted as to the following claims: Tew's
class action claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL;
Tew's individual claims under the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; and
Faulkner's individual gender discrimination claims under Title VII,
the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2j9x9fun from Leagle.com.
FCA US: Court Denies First & Second Intervention Bids in Maugain
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN et al., v.
FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-GBW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory B. Williams entered an order:
1. denying the First Intervention Motion and the Second
Intervention Motion; and
2. denying the Motion for Copy of Records as moot.
The Court finds that Martin does not meet the standard to intervene
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
In this action, Martin asserts no statute-and FCA fails to identify
any statute-that gives Martin the right to or permission to
intervene. Martin also cannot meet the remaining requirements for
intervention by right. Martin cannot show that disposition of this
action would, practically, impair or affect his interests.
Martin seeks compensation for the cost of repairing his vehicle.
The Court also denies permissive intervention for the same reasons.
Plaintiffs assert the same injuries as Martin asserts and would
include Martin in their nationwide class. Martin may also opt out
of the class, so there is no reason this action must impair or
affect his interest in compensation.
The Plaintiffs Etienne Maugain, Louise Shumate, Denise Hunter,
Harry Reichlen, John Kundrath, Kenneth Esteves, John Skleres,
Richard Archer, Stephen Dreikosen, and Leonel Cantu filed this
consumer class action against FCA to obtain monetary relief based
on FCA's alleged failure to disclose engine defects in
"2014 or newer Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, or RAM-branded vehicles
equipped with 3.6L Pentastar V6 engine ('Class Vehicles')."
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WtzCjo at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of CPGERS Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, 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 28, 2022, that a
motion to dismiss class action complaint was filed by the
defendants and an opposition was filed by the plaintiff in October
2022.
On January 7, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit titled "City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. First Solar, Inc.,
et al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-00036-MTL, was filed in the United States
District court for the District of Arizona against the company and
certain of its current officers.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of First Solar common stock between February 22,
2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive. The complaint asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements related to the company's Series 6 solar modules and its
project development business. It seeks unspecified damages and an
award of costs and expenses.
The company and its officers believe they have meritorious defenses
and intend to vigorously defend this action. On April 25, 2022, the
Arizona District court issued an order appointing the Palm Harbor
Special Fire Control & Rescue District Firefighters' Pension Plan
and the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiffs.
On June 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
brings the same claims and seeks the same relief as the original
complaint. Putative Class Action Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on August 22, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motion to dismiss on October 21, 2022.
First Solar, Inc.is a solar technology company and provider of PV
solar energy solutions based in Arizona.
FOUNDERS IWGC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Cheng
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng, et al., v. Liu, et
al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01726 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson,
III entered an order amending the amended scheduling order
regarding FRCP 23 Issues as follows:
-- The Defendant Liu will either complete and sign the errata
sheet or waive reading and signing of the transcript of
his deposition, and counsel for Defendant Liu will provide
a copy of any such errata sheet to Plaintiffs' counsel no
later than October 28, 2022;
-- The Plaintiffs will file their class certification motion
and memorandum in support no later than November 4, 2022;
-- The Defendants will file their response(s) to Plaintiffs'
motion by December 9, 2022; and
-- The Plaintiffs will file their reply, if any, by December
23, 2022.
The Plaintiffs include Kelin Cai and Xunhui Cheng.
The Defendants include Founders IWGC LLC, Atlantic Coast Funding
LLC, Founders Aberdeen LLC, Founders Development LLC, Founders BRGC
LLC, Founders Golf Management LLC, Founders Bluewater LLC, Wild
Wing Land and Development LLC, Offshore Captain LLC, Dan Liu,
Founders Group International, LLC, Founders RHGC LLC, Founders
National Golf LLC, Founders GGC LLC, Founders Tradition LLC,
Founders Wild Wing LLC, D&C International Holdings LLC, Atlantic
Development Company LLC and Founders Events LLC
The nature of suit states contract -- stockholders suits.[CC]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Amends Order Granting Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA EWING, et al., v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order amending
its Order granting class certification only on the issue of
Plaintiff Tamara Ewing.
- The Plaintiff Nicholus Johnson is substituted for Plaintiff
Ewing as a designated class representative.
- Accordingly, the Plaintiff Ewing is dismissed without
prejudice.
Geico Indemnity provides vehicle, property, business, and life
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UliCds at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERALI US: Order Dismissing Oglevee Travel Insurance Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA OGLEVEE, KRISTEN JOHNER, RENEE CLONTS, MELISSA
GARNER, AMITABH SHARMA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, AMY FLANIGAN,
SHELLEY KEITH, MATTHEW NIXON, KARI NIXON, RICHARD ROBBINS, VAL
DZIAGWA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH, CUSTOMIZED SERVICES
ADMINISTRATORS, INC. GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE AND INSURANCE
SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-336-cv (2d Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the judgment
of Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed this consolidated class action suit
based on travel insurance policies provided by Generali and
Customized Services (together, "Generali") for scheduled trips that
were cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. They appeal
from a judgment of the District Court dismissing their claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, bad faith, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On appeal, they challenge only the District Court's dismissal of
their breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. They argue
that the travel insurance policies' relevant general exclusion does
not apply, that the coverage provisions for "quarantine" and
"natural disaster" apply, and that Generali was unjustly enriched
by portions of the insurance premiums attributable to
post-departure coverages.
Applying state law -- of Georgia, Oregon, Missouri, Utah,
Pennsylvania, and Florida -- the District Court considered and
rejected these arguments. Having reviewed the District Court's Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, and having considered the parties'
arguments on appeal, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the
District Court for substantially the same reasons set forth in the
District Court's Dec. 21, 2021 opinion and order. It has also
considered the Plaintiffs-Appellants' remaining arguments and
concludes that they are without merit.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w26u3xp8 from Leagle.com.
JAMISEN A. ETZEL -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Lynch Carpenter,
LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, (David E. Kovel -- dkovel@kmllp.com
V-Card -- Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY, Bryan L. Clobes --
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
LLP, Media, PA, on the brief), FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Washington, DC (Bronwyn F. Pollock -- bpollock@mayerbrown.com
-- C. Mitchell Hendy -- mhendy@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Los Angeles, CA, on the brief), FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
GODADDY INC: TPCA Class Suit Pending in 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy 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 3, 2022, that the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act class suit remains pending in the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
As described in our 2021 Form 10-K, as of December 31, 2021, the
Company had accrued $8.1 million as our estimated loss provision
related to the settlement of certain class action complaints
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.
On January 19, 2021, a single objector to the settlement filed a
notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (the 11th
Circuit).
On July 27, 2022, the 11th Circuit vacated the settlement approval
order and remanded the case for further action due to standing
issues among the class members.
On August 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing
before the 11th Circuit, which remains pending as of the date of
this filing.
Given the pending nature of this petition, and the possibility for
one or more parties to seek relief from the Supreme Court, the
finality and/or impact of the July 27, 2022 decision is uncertain.
As a result, the Company have not adjusted its estimated loss
provision for this settlement as of September 30, 2022.
GoDaddy Inc. (NYSE: GDDY) provides a cloud-based web platform for
small businesses, web design professionals and individuals. The
Company's platform provides applications that help them connect to
their customers, manage their businesses and get found online. It
was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.
HALLMARK CARDS: Faces Class Action Over Promotional Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges Hallmark Cards has illegally sent
telemarketing text messages to phone numbers listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry, even after being explicitly asked to stop.
The 14-page suit alleges the greeting card retailer has
persistently sent unwanted text messages to a Connecticut
consumer's cell phone throughout the past year and as recently as
October 24, even though the man's number had been registered on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. According to the case, the text
messages advertised various Hallmark promotions and contained a
link to its website
Although Hallmark's text included instructions to "Txt STOP=opt
out," the lawsuit contends that the company ignored the plaintiff's
two requests to "[s]top" and continued to send him telemarketing
messages for another month.
"In addition to using Plaintiff's telephone data, phone storage,
and battery life, Plaintiff's privacy was wrongfully invaded," the
complaint reads. "Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated
with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted text
messages, forcing Plaintiff to divert attention away from other
activities."
The filing alleges that Hallmark intentionally programmed its
telephone dialing system to continue sending spam message for more
than 30 days after a consumer texts "stop."
Per the complaint, Hallmark has violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending telephone solicitations
to phone numbers listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry. The TCPA also
prohibits any telemarketing initiation in which the caller fails to
"honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a
reasonable time from the date such request is made," the case
explains.
According to the suit, the plaintiff has no prior business
relationship with Hallmark and never provided the retailer with his
phone number.
The lawsuit looks to represent the following class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the
filing of this action (1) were sent text messages by or on behalf
of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period;
(3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the
purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of Defendant's
products and/or services; and (5) where either (a) Defendant did
not obtain prior express written consent to message the person or
(b) the called person previously advised Defendant to 'STOP'
messaging them." [GN]
HARBOR FREIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Hammack Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL HAMMACK, et al.,
v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 22-CV-00312-SRB (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Harbor Freight's motion to dismiss first
amended complaint as follows:
(1) Defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV is granted
insofar as Plaintiffs assert a claim under Missouri law
but denied insofar as Plaintiffs assert a claim under
Kansas law;
(2) Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts V-VII is granted;
and
(3) Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I–III, VIII is
denied.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs' argument to be persuasive. In
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, they allege the Products were
defective and thus not merchantable because the Products contain a
"polymer compound that is susceptible to oxidation" which degrade
"relatively rapidly and becomes brittle within a few short years of
manufacture."
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant "omits these material
facts from its consumers" in addition to failing to include an
expiration date on the label.
This alleged failure to include an adequate expiration date
resulted in economic injuries to "Plaintiffs and other purchasers
had no way to use the products safely because they had no way of
knowing when the products expired, including whether the products
had already expired when purchased."
The Plaintiffs Russell Hammack and Melvin Lampton are consumers who
purchased Defendant's bonded abrasive wheel products.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated and seek certification of various nationwide and
state subclasses. The Plaintiffs purchased the products directly
from retail stores owned by Defendant.
The Plaintiffs allege generally that the Products sold by Defendant
were defective because they were deceptively packaged in that they
failed to warn consumers of a shelf-life or expiration date, after
which use of the products is dangerous.
Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer,
headquartered in Calabasas, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DZX8NR at no extra charge.[CC]
HEALTHY PAWS: Order Modifying Case Schedule Entered in Benanav
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, BRYAN
GAGE, MONICA KOWALSKI, LINDSAY PURVEY, STEPHANIE CAUGHLIN, and
KATHERINE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00421-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered
an order modifying case schedule as follows:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to February 3, 2023
file Motion for Class
Certification and
Class Certification Expert
Reports:
-- Deadline for Defendant to file May 5, 2023
Opposition to Motion forClass
Certification and Class
Certification Expert Reports:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file June 5, 2023
Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification; Deadline
for Plaintiffs to Complete
Deposition of Defendant's
Class Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Daubert Motions as June 30, 2023
to Class Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Oppositions to August 18, 2023
Daubert Motions as to Class
Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Replies to Daubert September 14, 2023
Motions as to Class Certification
Experts:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gZp3nY at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Minn. Fed. Court Affirms Magistrate Judge Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taqueria El Primo LLC et
al v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
0:19-cv-03071-JRT-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim
entered an order affirming the Magistrate Judge's ruling as
follows:
-- The Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order
is denied, and
-- The Magistrate Judge's Order is affirmed.
The Court said, "Although the Defendants contend allowing an
amendment would not have prejudiced Plaintiffs, granting the Motion
may prejudice Plaintiffs. They may need to seek additional
discovery, requiring relief from the scheduling order and it may
necessitate splitting the damages class into multiple classes based
on different damages theories. In sum, the Magistrate Judge did not
err in finding that Defendants did not show good cause for relief
from the scheduling order. As such, the Magistrate Judge did not
clearly err in denying Defendants' Motion. The Court will thus
overrule Defendants' appeal and affirm the Magistrate Judge's
decision."
The Plaintiffs Taqueria El Primo LLC, Victor Manuel Delgado
Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, and Benjamin Tarnowski, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed this class action on December 11,
2019. Two days later they filed an amended complaint.
And on June 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the now operative Second
Amended Complaint.
The defendants sell automobile insurance in Minnesota. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into confidential
contracts with certain health care providers under which the
providers agreed not to bill Defendants for any treatment provided
to someone insured by Defendants.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants did not
disclose these agreements to Defendants' policyholders or to the
public. The Plaintiffs allege that these limitations violate
Minnesota law and the terms of the policy contracts.
The Plaintiffs brought class action claims on behalf of themselves
and two classes against the Defendants for violation of the
Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that any contractual
provision limiting coverage guaranteed either by the insurance
policies or Minnesota law is void, an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from enforcing any limitations that violate the policy
terms or Minnesota law, and monetary damages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U0OUuq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West Seventy-Eighth Street
Edina, MN 55439
- and -
David W. Asp, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
Jennifer Jacobs, Esq.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
Stephen Matthew Owen, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
- and -
Paul J. Phelps, Esq.
SAWICKI & PHELPS
5758 Blackshire Path
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
The Defendants are represented by
Emily C. Atmore, Esq.
John Katuska, Esq.
Marc A. Al, Esq.
Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
ILLINOIS VALLEY: Magistrated Judge to Enter Final Order in Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson et al v. Illinois
Valley School District 321 et al., Case No.1:22-cv-01102-JBM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Court entered an order referring the case to Hon.
Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley to conduct all proceedings and
order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the Parties are notified that a United States
magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any
or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,
and to order the entry of a final judgment.
Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however,
permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.
The Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold
their consent, but this will prevent the court's jurisdiction from
being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds
consent, the identity of the parties cons nting or withholding
consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the
district judge to whom the case has been assigned, the Court says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WAmlWs at no extra charge.[CC]
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Class Action in Oregon Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that in the United
States, class action suits filed in various jurisdictions were
consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the United States
District court for the District of Oregon, which entered final
judgment in favor of Intel in July 2022 based on plaintiffs'
failure to plead a viable claim.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit court
of Appeals.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in California.
INTEL CORPORATION: Subsidiary Faces Class Action in Argentina Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that in Argentina,
Intel Argentina was served with, and responded to, a class action
complaint in June 2022. Additional lawsuits and claims may be
asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in California.
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies 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 4, 2022, that the Company filed
its reply in support of the motion to dismiss the Securities Class
Action Lawsuit on November 3, 2022.
On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the Company and its former Chief Executive
Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder ("Securities
Class Action Lawsuit").
On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021. The
amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the Company
and Mr. King, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, Michael
J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and current Chief
Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.
On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed, and the Court held a
hearing on the motion on February 4, 2022, after which the Court
took the matter under submission.
On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Lawsuit, without
allowing the plaintiff further leave to amend, and entered judgment
in favor of the Company and the other defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the plaintiff that filed the initial complaint
in the action filed a notice of appeal.
On September 7, 2022, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening
brief, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing to appeal and Article III standing on September 27, 2022.
On October 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed its response to the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on November 3, 2022.
The Company believes the class action to be without merit and plan
to defend itself vigorously.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.
IVERIC BIO: Faces Ferber Class Action
-------------------------------------
IVERIC Bio 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 4, 2022, shareholders filed a
derivative action against the company captioned Brian Ferber et
al., derivatively on behalf of Ophthotech Corporation v. Axel Bolte
et al., Index No. 154462/2021.
On May 6, 2021, the shareholders who served the October 16, 2018
demand filed a shareholder derivative action against current and
former members of the Company's board of directors and certain
current and former officers of the Company in the New York Supreme
Court, captioned Brian Ferber et al., derivatively on behalf of
Ophthotech Corporation v. Axel Bolte et al., Index No. 154462/2021.
The complaint asserts the same claims as those asserted in the
Pacheco complaint and is based on factual allegations that are
materially similar to the allegations in the Pacheco complaint.
On June 22, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation staying the
Ferber action until 60 days after the SLC concludes its
investigation.
On January 27, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement.
The Company has entered into tolling agreements with the directors
named in the demands to December 2022.
The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is
unable, however, to predict the outcome of these matters, including
that of the settlement agreement discussions, at this time.
IVERIC bio, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel treatments for retinal diseases
based in New Jersey.
IVERIC BIO: Settlement in Micholle Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC Bio 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 4, 2022, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement of the putative class action
lawsuit Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation et al. on
September 16, 2022.
On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.
On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.
These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018.
On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "CAC"). The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the Company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD. The
CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.
The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
CAC on July 27, 2018.
On September 18, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing some,
but not all, of the allegations in the CAC.
On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants
filed an answer to the complaint.
On June 12, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.
On August 11, 2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition
to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On April 23, 2021, the court issued an order staying the action
until July 1, 2021, 10 days after a mediation scheduled for June
21, 2021.
On July 1, 2021, following the June 21, 2021 mediation, the parties
notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle
to settle the class action.
On September 8, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and submitted the agreement to the court for approval. Under the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay $29
million, which includes the attorneys' fees and costs and expenses
for the plaintiffs' counsel.
On March 17, 2022, the court provided a preliminary approval of the
settlement.
In April 2022, the Company's insurance carriers paid the full
amount of the settlement directly to the plaintiffs’ escrow
account.
On September 16, 2022, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. This settlement did not have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition.
IVERIC bio, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel treatments for retinal diseases
based in New Jersey.
IVERIC BIO: Settlement in Pacheco Suit Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC Bio 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 4, 2022, that the court issued an
order that preliminarily approves the settlement in the shareholder
derivative action Luis Pacheco v. David R. Guyer, et al.
On August 31, 2018, a shareholder derivative action was filed
against current and former members of the Company's board of
directors and certain current and former officers of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Luis Pacheco v. David R. Guyer, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-07999.
The complaint, which is based substantially on the facts alleged in
the CAC, alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company and wasted the Company's corporate assets by
failing to oversee the Company's business, and also alleges that
the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged
conduct, including through receipt of bonuses, stock options and
similar compensation from the Company, and through sales of the
Company's stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016.
The complaint purports to seek unspecified damages on the Company's
behalf, attorneys' fees, and other costs, as well as an order
directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate
governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws,
including submitting certain proposed amendments to the Company's
corporate charter, bylaws and corporate governance policies for
vote by the Company's stockholders.
On December 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On September 19, 2019, the court denied its motion to dismiss this
complaint. This matter was subsequently referred to a special
litigation committee ("SLC") of the Company's board of directors.
On February 18, 2020, the Company filed an answer to the complaint.
The Company and the plaintiff agreed to stay this litigation while
the SLC conducts its investigation.
On May 4, 2020, the court approved the stipulation and stayed the
litigation through November 1, 2020.
By agreement of the parties, the court has since extended the stay
through June 26, 2021.
The Company also entered into tolling agreements with the defendant
directors to December 2022.
On January 27, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement
(the "Stipulation of Settlement").
On November 3, 2022, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.
IVERIC bio, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel treatments for retinal diseases
based in New Jersey.
JACKSON, MS: Federal Judge Lifts Consent Decree on Youth Jail
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has lifted a
decade-long federal consent decree governing a youth jail in
Mississippi's capital city.
The original court order was handed down in 2012 and extended
several times. In an Oct. 13 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge
Daniel P. Jordan agreed to Hinds County's request to terminate the
consent decree on the Henley-Young Patton Juvenile Justice Center
in Jackson.
The decree, which ordered the jail to improve its conditions,
stemmed from a 2011 class action lawsuit filed by the Southern
Poverty Law Center and Disability Rights Mississippi. The suit
alleged "inhuman and unconstitutional practices" at the facility,
"including regularly isolating children in small cells for 20-23
hours a day and subjecting them to sensory deprivation."
Children "languished in their cells, receiving sporadic access to
educational services and counseling services," according to court
records. The suit also alleged that detainees with serious mental
health needs were "frequently denied the services necessary to
treat their conditions."
County officials say conditions have improved inside the jail. With
the decree lifted, the jail can increase the number of detainees it
holds at one time.
"For (10) years, the county has operated under that consent decree,
but as a result of the strides we've made, as well as the steps
taken by our most recent board (of supervisors) over the last year,
the court has allowed us to terminate the decree," said Tony
Gaylor, an attorney for the Hinds County Board of Supervisors. "It
was battle that involved a lot of expenditures and several monitors
from all over the country, but many changes have taken place."
In March, the county asked for the decree to be lifted, citing
rising crime numbers among young people, according to WLBT-TV. With
the federal order lifted, the facility can bring in more
detainees.
Jail officials said issues arose after the jail had to start
housing juveniles charged as adults. Those detainees could no
longer be held at Raymond Detention Center. Another federal judge
seized control of the Raymond Detention Center in July, citing
"severely deficient" conditions at the facility.
Marshand Crisler, Henley-Young's executive director, said the jail
has enough beds to detain up to 80 juvenile detainees, but it could
only hold 32 people under the federal order. "Yet, youth in the
'free world' throughout the county continue to commit crimes that
are serious enough to cause those juveniles to be charged as
adults," Crisler said.
Eric Dorsey, the quality assurance coordinator for Henley-Young,
said the county has revised or created 115 new policies in response
to the consent decree. [GN]
JAI PRABHU: Guadarrama Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KATHIA GUADARRAMA, Plaintiff v. JAI PRABHU, LLC; ANITA PATEL; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV34401 (Cal.
Sup. Ct., October 26, 2022) brings this complaint on behalf herself
and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees seeking
penalties against the Defendants pursuant to the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 as a result of the Defendants'
alleged misconduct that violated the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendants from in or
around 2022 as a receptionist for the Defendants' hotel/motel in
the city of El Monte until she resigned from her employment after 3
months.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants did not compensate her and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees at the minimum wage rate for all hours
they have worked;
-- The Defendants did not compensate her when the Defendants
asked her to work because they did not have coverage although she
has tendered her resignation;
-- The Defendants had a policy and practice of rounding down
work hours to the detriment of employees as she noticed her
paystubs which did not reflect her true hours worked;
-- The Defendants did not pay them accurate overtime
compensation because it failed to include their bonuses/incentive
pay/shift differential pay in calculating employees’ regular rate
of pay;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them with 10-minute rest
periods for every 4 hours of work as well as a requisite 30-minute,
uninterrupted meal periods for every 5 hours of work throughout
their employment;
-- The Defendants failed to pay them premium pay for missed
meal and rest breaks;
-- The Defendants failed to reimburse them for their incurred
necessary, business-related expenses and costs;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them with complete,
accurate itemized wage statements; and
-- The Defendants willfully failed to pay them their earned
and due wages upon separation of employment
Jai Prabhu operates a hotel/motel in the city of El Monte. Anita
Patel is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 484-6531
Fax: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Suits in Canada Over Molded Doors
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeld-wen Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that the company
anticipates a Federal Court Action hearing for the molded
doors-related suits in Canada in 2023. The company intends to
vigorously defend against the said action.
The Company anticipates a hearing on the certification of the
Federal Court Action in 2023.
On May 15, 2020, Developpement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and Masonite in the Superior Court of
the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on us on September
18, 2020 ("the Quebec Action").
The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since
October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from the
Company or Masonite. The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between
the Company and Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of
market shares and/or the production levels of interior molded doors
and that the plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged
and paid higher prices for interior molded doors than they would
have had to pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On September 9, 2020, Kate O'Leary
Swinkels, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action against JELD-WEN and Masonite in the
Federal Court of Canada, which was served on the Company on
September 29, 2020 (the "Federal Court Action").
The Federal Court Action makes substantially similar allegations to
the Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same
counsel.
In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Court Action issued
a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaced the named
plaintiff, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, with David Regan. The plaintiff
has sought a stay of the Quebec Action while the Federal Court
Action proceeds.
The Company anticipates a hearing on the certification of the
Federal Court Action in 2023.
The Company believes both the Quebec Action and the Federal Court
Action lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued in South Africa Over Defective Mesh Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Khulekani Magubane, writing for news24, reports that law firms RH
Lawyers and attorney Richard Spoor have initiated a class action
lawsuit in the South High Court in Johannesburg against Johnson &
Johnson, Ethicon, Coloplast, and Nuangle over pelvic mesh devices
that they contend were defective and caused injuries.
The pelvic mesh devices in question are surgically implanted into
the vaginal or pelvic region for the treatment of pelvic organ
prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
The matter between the firms and the companies has been on the
table since at least 2021, but RH Lawyers and Spoor said in a
statement on Wednesday that they were ready to pursue the class
action suit.
Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson have already been ordered to pay $1.7
million (R31 million) to three women in Australia after a court in
that country determined that the companies misled patients and
surgeons about the risks of using the devices. Supporting
affidavits from nine women were also provided to the court. A full
bench of the Australian High Court dismissed the companies'
appeal.
In a statement, RH Lawyers and Spoor announced that the class
action intends to seek compensation for South African women that
had "defective" pelvic mesh devices implanted and suffered harm as
a result.
"The pelvic mesh devices that are surgically implanted to treat the
abovementioned conditions, are made in whole or in part from
polypropylene and are intended to be implanted permanently. The
mesh is porous and is designed in a way so that the patient's
tissue grows through the pores and effectively fuses the mesh to
the patient's body," the statement said.
The two firms said polypropylene is not a suitable material for
implants of this nature, since several scientific studies have
shown that polypropylene degrades when implanted into the human
body. This could result in degradation, the pelvic mesh device
hardening, and becoming deformed.
"This can result in various complications such as cutting into the
tissue, chronic inflammatory responses, excessive scar tissue
build-up, and mesh perforating tissue or eroding through the pelvic
wall," the statement said.
The statement said the parties would wait for the court to grant
the applicants permission to pursue a class action on behalf of
those affected.
The statement said applicants in the class action alleged that the
pelvic mesh devices were defective, in that they did not fit, and
resulted in the class members suffering bodily injuries.
"The applicants further allege that the respondents knew or ought
reasonably to have known of the defects associated with the pelvic
mesh device and to have taken appropriate steps to prevent the
class members from suffering harm.
"Should the application for certification be granted by the court,
the applicants will proceed to trial for determination on two
aspects. Firstly, to determine the liability of the respondents;
and secondly, to assess the quantum of damages payable to each
class member."
Spokesperson for Coloplast Peter Mønster said: "We do not comment
on specific lawsuits. Our purpose at Coloplast is to make life
easier for people with intimate healthcare needs."
"We are committed to the women's health business and believe our
mesh products improve lives and are a safe and valuable option for
surgeons who treat women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress
urinary incontinence," Mønster said.
News24 last week sent queries to Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson,
Nuangle as well as Coloplast. Their comments will be added to the
article once received. [GN]
JOSEPH FINANCIAL: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA O'NEAL AND DAVID
SUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. JOSEPH FINANCIAL, INC., a California Corporation; JOSEPH
FINANCIAL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company;
and ROBERT JOSEPH ARMIJO, a California individual, Case No.
8:22-cv-00939-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their unopposed motion to extend the
October 24, 2022 deadline to file the Motion for Class
Certification by 30 days, up to and including November 23, 2022.
The Parties submitted their Case Management Report on July 26,
2022. On August 10, 2022, the Court entered a Case Management and
Scheduling Order.
The Plaintiffs request a further extension of time up to and
including November 23, 2022, to file their Motion for Class
Certification.
The parties are engaged in discussions to resolve this action. If
those discussions are successful, this action will be resolved
without the need for additional litigation, including Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ftvkbn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
E-mail: Adam@moskowitz-law.com
Howard@moskowitz-law.com
Adams@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
E-mail: afriedman@BFFB.com
- and -
Jeffrey Sonn, Esq.
SONN LAW GROUP PA
One Turnberry Place, 19495 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 912-3000
Facsimile: (786) 485-1501
E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com
- and -
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: ANZ Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd. with prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MacQUARIE GROUP LTD., MacQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.
("ANZ"), which was consented to by ANZ.
The Final Judgment hereby incorporates by reference the definitions
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Dec. 10, 2021,
between the Representative Plaintiffs and ANZ.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits
as to ANZ (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs
except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will
be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against ANZ and any
John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former ANZ
employees (solely in that capacity) with prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former ANZ employees arising solely from those
former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that occurred while
not employed by ANZ; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants
in the Action other than ANZ and other than any John Doe Defendants
to the extent they are current or former employees of ANZ (solely
in their capacity as employees of ANZ); or (iii) any claims against
any Defendant not affiliated with ANZ who may be subsequently added
in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to ANZ will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yseuk7vp from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: BNP, Others Dismissed From Dennis Suit w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Final and Judgment dismissing Settling
Defendants BNP Paribas, S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of
Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (n/k/a NatWest Markets plc),
and UBS AG, with prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MacQUARIE GROUP LTD., MacQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with BNP the Settling Defendants, which was
consented to by Settling Defendants.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
Settling Defendants (but not any other Defendant) without fees or
costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action
will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against the
Settling Defendants and any John Doe Defendants to the extent they
are current or former employees of Settling Defendants (solely in
that capacity) with prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former employees of Settling Defendants arising
solely from those former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that
occurred while not employed by the Settling Defendants; (ii) any
claims against the named Defendants in this Action other than the
Settling Defendants and other than any John Doe Defendants to the
extent they are current or former employees of Settling Defendants
(solely in their capacity as employees of the Settling Defendants);
or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with
Settling Defendants who may be subsequently added in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs, pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to Settling Defendants will be final and
entered forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5zcca8 from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: CBA Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses Commonwealth Bank of Australia with
prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MacQUARIE GROUP LTD., MacQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("CBA"),
which was consented to by CBA.
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Dec. 10, 2021,
between the Representative Plaintiffs and CBA.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
CBA (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as
provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be
dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against CBA and any
John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former CBA
employees (solely in that capacity) with prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former CBA employees arising solely from those
former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that occurred while
not employed by CBA; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants
in the Action other than CBA and other than any John Doe Defendants
to the extent they are current or former employees of CBA (solely
in their capacity as employees of CBA); or (iii) any claims against
any Defendant not affiliated with CBA who may be subsequently added
in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to CBA will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b55bnbx from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Morgan Stanley From Dennis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses Settling Defendants Morgan Stanley
and Morgan Stanley Australia Limited with prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Morgan Stanley, which was consented to by
Morgan Stanley.
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Oct. 1, 2021 between
Representative the Plaintiffs and Morgan Stanley, and the Amendment
to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Jan. 13,
2022.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
Morgan Stanley (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs
except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will
be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Morgan
Stanley and any John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current
or former Morgan Stanley employees (solely in that capacity) with
prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former Morgan Stanley employees arising solely
from those former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that
occurred while not employed by Morgan Stanley; (ii) any claims
against the named Defendants in the Action other than Morgan
Stanley and other than any John Doe Defendants to the extent they
are current or former employees of Morgan Stanley (solely in their
capacity as employees of Morgan Stanley); or (iii) any claims
against any Defendant not affiliated with Morgan Stanley who may be
subsequently added in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies
to the Action). Each of the Releasing Parties will forever be
enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against
any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any
of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to
assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against
any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to Morgan Stanley will be final and
entered forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3urbara3 from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Credit Suisse Dismissed From Dennis With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Final Judgment and Order dismissing
Settling Defendants Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Group AG
with prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MacQUARIE GROUP LTD., MacQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Credit Suisse, which was consented to by
Credit Suisse.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
Credit Suisse (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs
except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will
be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Credit
Suisse and any John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current
or former Credit Suisse employees (solely in that capacity) with
prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former Credit Suisse employees arising solely
from those former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that
occurred while not employed by Credit Suisse; (ii) any claims
against the named Defendants in the Action other than Credit Suisse
and other than any John Doe Defendants to the extent they are
current or former employees of Credit Suisse (solely in their
capacity as employees of Credit Suisse); or (iii) any claims
against any Defendant not affiliated with Credit Suisse who may be
subsequently added in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code. Upon the Effective Date,
each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from
prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the
Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the
Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist
any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any
Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs, pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to Credit Suisse will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/22azujav from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Dennis Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters a Final Judgment and Order, and
dismisses JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., with
prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MacQUARIE GROUP LTD., MacQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan")), which was consented to by JPMorgan.
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Nov. 19, 2018,
between the Representative Plaintiffs and JPMorgan, the Amendment
to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 1, 2021,
and the Second Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated Jan. 13, 2022.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in the Action, is dismissed fully, finally, and in its
entirety with prejudice on the merits as to JPMorgan (but not any
other Defendant) without fees or costs. The Action, including each
claim in the Action, is dismissed fully, finally, and in its
entirety with prejudice against any John Doe Defendants to the
extent they are current or former JPMorgan employees (solely in
that capacity).
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former JPMorgan employees arising solely from
those former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that occurred
while not employed by JPMorgan; (ii) any claims against the named
Defendants in the Action other than JPMorgan and other than any
John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former
employees of JPMorgan (solely in their capacity as employees of
JPMorgan); or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated
with JPMorgan who may be subsequently added in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code. The release also
constitutes a waiver of any and all provisions, rights, and
benefits of any federal, state or foreign law, rule, regulation, or
principle of law or equity that is similar, comparable, equivalent
to, or which has the effect of, Section 1542 of the California
Civil Code.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to JPMorgan will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/kryuyzmd from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: NAB Dismissed From Dennis Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses National Australia Bank Limited with
prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with National Australia Bank Limited ("NAB"),
which was consented to by NAB.
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Dec. 10, 2021 between
the Representative Plaintiffs and NAB.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
NAB (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as
provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be
dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against NAB and any
John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former NAB
employees (solely in that capacity) with prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former NAB employees arising solely from those
former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that occurred while
not employed by NAB; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants
in the Action other than NAB and Bank of New Zealand and other than
any John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former
employees of NAB (solely in their capacity as employees of NAB) or
other Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant
not affiliated with NAB who may be subsequently added in this
Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies
to the Action).
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to NAB will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/55c47fjf from Leagle.com.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Westpac Dismissed From Dennis Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses Westpac Banking Corp. with
prejudice.
The other Defendants are JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING
GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK
PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.,
AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 1, 2022, upon the
Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Westpac, which was consented to by Westpac.
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 1, 2021 between
the Representative Plaintiffs and Westpac and the Amendment to the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Jan. 13, 2022.
Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including
each claim in it, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to
Westpac (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except
as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be
dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Westpac and
any John Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former
Westpac employees (solely in that capacity) with prejudice.
The Releasing Parties fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the
Released Parties for any and all manner of claims.
The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i)
any claims against former Westpac employees arising solely from
those former employees' conduct or alleged conduct that occurred
while not employed by Westpac; (ii) any claims against the named
Defendants in the Action other than Westpac and other than any John
Doe Defendants to the extent they are current or former employees
of Westpac (solely in their capacity as employees of Westpac); or
(iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with Westpac
who may be subsequently added in the Action.
The foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each
Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under
Section 1542 of the California Civil Code.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever
be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim
against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to
sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims
or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims
against any Released Party.
Finding no just reason for delay, Judge Kaplan directs pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
judgment of dismissal as to Westpac will be final and entered
forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 1, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/35kv5mcw from Leagle.com.
LAKE CITY: McAllister's Bid to Certify Class OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA McALLISTER On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. LAKE CITY
CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00041-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Judge Sharion Aycock entered an order granting McAllister's motion
to certify class, which she filed on May 19, 2022.
The Court also appointed McAllister's counsel, W. Howard Gunn,
Esq., as class counsel.
On March 8, 2022, Melinda McAllister, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, initiated this action by filing her
Class Action Complaint against Lake City Credit.
McAllister's contention is that Lake City Credit's form letters,
which are sent to consumers across the State, fail to comply with
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) notice
requirement.
Lake City Credit is a collection agency in Dallas, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UaFzjX at no extra charge.[CC]
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Bid for Class Cert Filing Due November 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and
RUTH PEREZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC., and CNTP MCB,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 23 no later than November 21, 2022.
-- The Defendants shall file opposition, if any, by December
12, 2022.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by December
19, 2022.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for default judgment
within 21 days after the motion for class certification
is denied or, if the motion for class certification is
granted, within 21 days after Rule 23(c)(2) notice is
complete.
-- The Plaintiffs shall serve this Order on Defendants and
file proof of service by October 27, 2022. Plaintiffs
shall serve their class certification motion papers and
motion for default judgment papers on Defendants at the
time of filing and file proof of service within three
business days.
The Clerk of Court entered Certificates of Default against
Defendants on September 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs moved for leave to
file a motion for class certification and leave to take discovery
prior to entry of default judgment on November 9, 2020 and moved
for class certification on December 14, 2020.
Manhattan Cryobank is a sperm bank that uses genetic screening
technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T34xAq at no extra charge.[CC]
MATTEL INC: Fisher-Price Sleeper Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Mattel 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 company continues
to defend a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper.
A number of putative class action lawsuits filed between April 2019
and October 2019 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or
Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent
product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in
connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper").
In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants.
The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 10
statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the
Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep.
The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts’
Multi-District Litigation program.
In June 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
damages and injunctive relief classes under New York law, but
granted plaintiffs' request to certify a New York issue class to
resolve two issues on a class-wide basis.
In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to appeal the denial of
certification of the damages and injunctive relief classes.
Thirty-four additional lawsuits filed between April 2019 and July
2022 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.
alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities
of or injuries to thirty-eight children. Several lawsuits have been
settled and/or dismissed. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or
Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to
represent additional plaintiffs who are threatening to assert
similar claims.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et
al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale
of the Sleeper. The defendants in the derivative action are certain
of Mattel's current and former officers and directors.
In August 2020, the derivative action was stayed pending further
developments in the class action lawsuits. In August 2021, a second
similar derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware (Armon v. Bradley, et al., filed August 30,
2021), which is also stayed.
The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel
believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made at this time.
Mattel Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MCLEAN COUNTY, IL: Magistrate Judge to Enter Final Judgment in Pugh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pugh v. McLean County, et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01296-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), , the Court
entered an order referring the case to Hon. Magistrate Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley to conduct all proceedings and order the entry
of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(c) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the Parties are notified that a United States
magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any
or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,
and to order the entry of a final judgment.
Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however,
permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.
The Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold
their consent, but this will prevent the court's jurisdiction from
being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds
consent, the identity of the parties cons nting or withholding
consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the
district judge to whom the case has been assigned, the Court says.
McLean County is the largest county by land area in the U.S. state
of Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FT9p87 at no extra charge.[CC]
MEGACABLE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Recurrent Service Failures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico News Daily reports that the federal consumer protection
agency Profeco has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Mexican
telecommunications company Megacable due to increasing consumer
complaints about the company's recurrent service failures.
The legal action demands that Megacable deliver its contractually
obligated services on behalf of more than 4 million subscribers,
under the premise that failure to do so violates the user's human
right to access to communication and information technologies.
Under Mexico's Consumer's Federal Protection Law, Profeco may sue
whenever the constitutional rights of a group of consumers are
harmed; Mexicans' right to access communications and information
technology is protected by the nation's constitution.
In a statement, Profeco said that among users' main complaints were
the frequent loss of connectivity for long periods and undue
charges despite Megacable's service outages.
According to the agency, Megacable is the telecommunications and
cable television operator that had accumulated the most complaints
per million subscribers in recent months – an increase that was
noticed across different states in Profeco's Consumer Defense
Offices. The Federal Institute of Telecommunications also reported
that Megacable ranks second among Mexico's companies with the most
complaints reported as of June this year.
Internet service failures were the main complaint, followed by
disagreements about charges, pending balances and outage
reimbursements.
Earlier this year, the federal agency targeted AT&T México with a
class-action lawsuit. In May, the agency sued the company over a
subsidized equipment charge. Profeco objected to an annual 225-peso
(US $11) charge to AT&T México customers acquiring devices by
paying in monthly installments.
Profeco and AT&T México later reached an agreement in which AT&T
agreed to pay back the charges to 844,000 users. Those who had
stopped using the company were entitled to compensation of up to
3,000 pesos (US $150), while existing users were to receive a bonus
3-gigabyte data bundle.
With reports from Reporte Índigo and El Financiero [GN]
MIAMI, FL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tax Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Weaver and Joey Flechas, writing for Miami Herald, report that
during Miami's latest real estate boom, the city imposed and
collected a parking tax totaling tens of millions of dollars that
members of a new class-action case say is "illegal" under state law
and should be refunded to them.
The group of class members, representing potentially tens of
thousands of workers, residents and visitors in a lawsuit filed
Tuesday, are urging a judge to order Miami officials to reimburse
them and stop the city's 15% parking tax altogether. They cite a
strict requirement of the law that prohibits the city from imposing
the parking surcharge because of the declining level of tax-exempt
real estate in Miami. This story is a subscriber exclusive
For years, the city has been allowed to levy the parking tax on all
transactions at garages, lots and other facilities to boost its
finances, thanks to Florida law and a city referendum dating to
2003 when Miami was rising from a financial crisis. But there's a
catch: Large Florida cities such as Miami can only impose the
parking tax to supplement revenue as long as more than 20% of their
real property is tax exempt.
The new suit, citing public records filed with the state Department
of Revenue, claims Miami officials began violating that critical
provision in 2017 when the city's tax-exempt share of property
owned by schools, churches and homesteaded residents fell below
that threshold. Since then, due to exploding construction, new
taxable properties and rising real estate values, Miami's
tax-exempt status has dropped further.
"Because the 20% threshold . . . is not met, the Parking Ordinance
and related Parking Tax Regulations are not authorized and are
facially unconstitutional," attorneys Rachel Furst, Alex
Arteaga-Gomez and Stuart Grossman wrote in the class-action case
filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.
"Moreover, it is no longer economically necessary to impose and
collect the Parking Tax on folks who park in the City of Miami
because the City does not need the money to pay its expenses," they
wrote, seeking certification for the class action.
City officials on Tuesday declined to answer questions about the
lawsuit's allegations. City Attorney Victoria Méndez provided a
brief statement to the Miami Herald.
"We look forward to addressing this matter in court," she wrote in
an email.
CITY'S OVERALL FINANCIAL POSITION IS GOOD
With the help of federal pandemic relief funds and revenues that
exceeded grim projections in recent years, the city government has
a relatively strong financial position.
In September, the commissioners approved a $1.5 billion operating
budget for the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1. That's
about $200,000 more than the previous year, and with a property tax
rate that's the lowest since the 1960s — a rate cut that is
expected to reduce the city's tax revenue by about $7 million,
according to administrators.
Significant increases in property values and federal aid have
buttressed the city's finances. Still, legal settlements stemming
from labor disputes and a fight over a major waterfront development
are factored into Miami's spending.
Miami is already on the hook for millions in payments to police and
firefighters following a lawsuit over cuts to pay and pensions from
the Great Recession. And after years of litigation over a
long-stalled waterfront development on city-owned Watson Island,
the city agreed in 2019 to a settlement worth about $20 million
over the next decade.
The parking tax lawsuit if successful, could put a big dent in the
city's financial outlook.
The class-action case was filed by three representatives -- Richard
Klugh, Sara Wolfe and Josh Kaiser -- who work regularly in Miami
and have paid the parking tax at various locations, from Brickell
Avenue to Coconut Grove to Wynwood. They claim the city of Miami,
using a private contractor, has "illegally imposed and collected"
the parking tax for years.
The suit also notes that Miami is the only eligible large city in
the state to levy it. Under Florida law, the parking surcharge can
be used to lower a property tax rate as well as for street,
sidewalk and other roadway improvements.
"Their claims are very typical of citizens who park in the city of
Miami every day," Furst told the Miami Herald, estimating that the
size of the class could number in the tens of thousands of people.
"It adds a needless expense to the already high cost of working in
the city."
SEEKING TO RECOVER CHARGES BACK TO 2019
Furst said the class-action case seeks to recover parking taxes
collected by public and private facility operators and turned over
to the city from October 2019 to October 2022. That is the
allowable claw-back period under the statute of limitations.
According to the suit's estimates, the city of Miami has collected
about $55 million in parking taxes over the three-year period, but
the amount is expected to be higher when complete records are
available by the end of 2022.
If the class is certified and prevails against the city of Miami,
the vast majority of people who incurred the parking tax would be
able to qualify for a refund by showing they paid it with
statements of their credit or debit card transactions or possibly
receipts. The parking facility operators also keep records showing
proof of payment. The minority of people who did pay cash could
also qualify for a refund under some plan, including providing a
sworn statement, Furst said.
For more than a decade, the city has run the parking tax program
through a contract with a private business, Complete Consulting
Services Group, which receives $700,000 annually, the suit says. It
also notes that the city has adopted "coercive" penalties such as
stiff fines to compel facility operators to impose and collect the
parking surcharge.
Before filing the class-action case, Furst's law firm sent Miami's
city manager, Arthur Noriega, and Mendez, the city attorney, a
letter dated Sept. 19, asserting that the parking tax was
"unconstitutional" and proposing a meeting to discuss the matter.
But Furst said the city responded with delays.
The latest parking tax case is not the first time that the city has
been sued over the issue. In 1999, amid a severe financial crisis,
the state Legislature allowed Miami to impose a similar parking tax
to help boost revenues.
But a resident, as well as Miami-Dade County, challenged the tax,
and it was rescinded after the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2002
that it was unconstitutional because the parking surcharge
benefited only one Florida city, Miami. As a result, the city
reimbursed funds to people who had paid the tax.
The following year, the state Legislature modified the law allowing
Miami and other large Florida cities with a population of 200,000
or more to adopt such a parking tax — but with certain
conditions, including meeting the threshold on the tax-exempt
provision for real property. In 2003, Miami voters approved the 15
percent parking tax in a referendum.
Lawyers who filed the latest suit said the city imposed the tax
legally for more than a decade. The suit says that since 2017,
however, Miami officials reported annually to the state that less
than 20 percent of the city's real property has been tax-exempt.
Therefore, the suit claims, the city's parking surcharge is
unconstitutional. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansac Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMMEL AMANSAC, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-08798-EP-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Evelyn Padin, entered an order denying motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Midland is an American debt buyer and debt collection company
headquartered in San Diego, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h3mDER at no extra charge.[CC]
MOBILITYLESS LLC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Swenson
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Swenson, et al., v.
Mobilityless, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-30168 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the
Parties' Joint motion for extension of deadlines and amend the
scheduling order, as follow:
-- The deadline for completion of December 30, 2022
non-expert discovery is extended
to:
-- The deadline for the defendant December 2, 2022
to disclose the identify of its
expert(s) is extended to:
-- The deadline for completion of March 10, 2023
expert depositions is extended
to:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any April 28, 2023
new motion for class certification
on or before:
-- The Defendants opposition shall May 26, 2023
be filed by:
-- A reply, if any, shall be filed June 9, 2023
by:
-- Dispositive motions, if any, shall April 28, 2023
be filed by no later than:
-- Oppositions thereto shall be May 26, 2023
filed by:
-- Replies, if any, shall be filed June 9, 2023
by:
-- There will be a hearing on June 27, 2023
any new motion for class
certification and any
dispositive motions on:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property –
Diversity-Fraud.[CC]
NANTHEALTH INC: Engleman Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 10, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth 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 4, 2022, that a hearing is set for
January 10, 2023 to determine whether the court will approve the
settlement.
In April 2018, two putative shareholder derivative actions,
captioned Engleman v. Soon-Shiong, Case No. 2018-0282-AGB, and
Petersen v. Soon-Shiong, Case No. 2018-0302-AGB were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiff in the Engleman action
previously filed a similar complaint in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, which was dismissed based on a provision in the
Company's charter requiring derivative actions to be brought in
Delaware.
The Engleman and Petersen complaints contain allegations similar to
those in the Deora action but asserted causes of action on behalf
of NantHealth against various of the Company's current or former
executive officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate
assets, and unjust enrichment. The Company is named solely as a
nominal defendant.
In July 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the Engleman
and Petersen actions as In re NantHealth, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Lead C.A. No. 2018-0302, appointing Petersen as lead
plaintiff, and designating the Petersen complaint as the operative
complaint.
On September 20, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.
In October 2018, in response to the motion to dismiss, Petersen
filed an amended complaint.
In November 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste
of corporate assets (which Petersen subsequently withdrew), and
unjust enrichment.
On January 14, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court
dismissed all claims except one claim against Dr. Patrick
Soon-Shiong for breach of fiduciary duty.
Dr. Soon-Shiong and the Company filed answers to the amended
complaint on March 30, 2020.
On June 29, 2021, the Court granted the Unopposed Motion to
Substitute Lead Plaintiff, following Plaintiff Petersen's sale of
his NantHealth stock, and appointed Engleman as Lead Plaintiff.
On September 26, 2022, the parties filed with the Court a
Stipulation for Compromise and Settlement to resolve the
consolidated action in exchange for (i) the payment of $400, to be
funded by the Company's insurance carriers, to offset the Company's
contribution to the settlement of the Deora action, and (ii)
agreeing to implement certain corporate governance reforms.
Additionally, the Company agreed to pay an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to counsel for Lead Plaintiff in an amount of $1,250,
to be funded by the Company's insurance carriers which is included
in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets at September 30, 2022.
The settlement is contingent upon certain matters, including final
approval by the Court.
A hearing to determine whether the Court will approve the
settlement is scheduled for January 10, 2023.
If the settlement is approved by the Court, the Company will be
required to implement the settlement's corporate governance reforms
within 60 days following such approval and will recognize the $400
favorable settlement.
NantHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: NH), together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. NantHealth, Inc. is a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.
NANTHEALTH INC: Putative Derivative Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth 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 4, 2022, that the court dismissed
the NantHealth, Inc. Derivative Litigation with prejudice on May
12, 2021.
In April 2018, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned
Shen v. Soon-Shiong was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.
In November 2018, a putative shareholder derivative action
captioned Manuel v. Soon-Shiong was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints contained
allegations similar to those in the Deora action but also asserted
causes of action on behalf of NantHealth against various of the
Company's current or former executive officers and directors for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, as well
as alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on
alleged misstatements or omissions in the Company's 2017 proxy
statement.
The Company was named solely as a nominal defendant.
On January 15, 2019, the Shen and Manuel actions were consolidated
in a case captioned In re NantHealth, Inc. Derivative Litigation.
The parties agreed to stay the consolidated case pending a decision
on defendants' motion to dismiss in the derivative action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
The stay was lifted after the Delaware Court of Chancery's January
14, 2020 decision granting in part and denying in part the motion
to dismiss.
On October 5, 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed
which brought claims only against Dr. Soon-Shiong for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary
duty based on alleged misstatement or omissions in the Company's
2017 and 2018 proxy statements and other public filings.
On December 4, 2020, defendant moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On February 2, 2021, plaintiffs filed an answering brief in
opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss.
On March 18, 2021, defendant filed a reply brief in further support
of his motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 12, 2021, the District Court granted defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in full with prejudice.
NantHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: NH), together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. NantHealth, Inc. is a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.
NCR CORP: Underpays Customer Engineers' OT Wages, Knutson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KNUTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NCR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-05925 (N.D. Ill., October 26, 2022) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful pay policy and practice that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a customer engineer
from approximately March 2020 through August 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours each week as a customer engineer. However, the
Defendant did not allow him to report all of the hours he has
worked each week. Accordingly, the Defendant only allowed its
customer engineers to report the hours they worked while physically
at a job location. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated customer engineers communicates with the Defendant's
clients before and after jobsite visits, they were not compensated
for the time they spent working off-the-clock. In addition, the
Defendant did not include its customer engineers' non-discretionary
incentive bonuses and a weekly auto allowance in their regular rate
calculation for the purpose of determining their overtime rates. As
a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer engineers were not
paid a proper overtime compensation at the legally required
overtime rate, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated customer
engineers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an amount equal
to their unpaid overtime compensation, interest at the rate of 5%
per month in the amount of the underpayment, penalty damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest at the
highest available rates, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.
NCR Corporation is a software and services provider servicing the
financial, retail, and hospitality industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Lindsay Itkin Reimer, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: litkin@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in G.K. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. K. et al., v. Governor,
NH, State of, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004 (D.N.H.), the Hon.
Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an order extending the class
certification deadlines as follows:
-- Motion for class certification June 15, 2023
due by:
-- Summary Judgment Motions due by: Nov. 15, 2023
New Hampshire, a U.S. state in New England, is defined by its
quaint towns and large expanses of wilderness.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Dunn, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERELLE DUNN, SAMUEL
SEMPLE, ANDRE WASHINGTON, MATTHEW CHRISTIANSON, WILLIAM CLANTON,
SAMIR SHABAN, and MICHAEL PENA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, , Case No.
1:21-cv-09012-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and for such other and further relief as
is just and proper.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world’s major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 24,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DDD82f
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
David B. Rankin, Esq.
Deema Azizi, Esq.
Regina Powers, Esq.
BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, PH/26 Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 490-0400
Facsimile: (212) 277-5825
E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com
drankin@blhny.com
dazizi@blhny.com
rpowers@blhny.com
- and -
Rob Rickner, Esq.
Masai I. Lord, Esq.
Stephanie Panousieris, Esq.
RICKNER PLLC
14 Wall Street, Suite 1603
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-6506
E-mail: rob@ricknerpllc.com
mlord@lordlawgroup.com
stephanie@ricknerpllc.com
- and -
Christopher H. Fitzgerald, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER H. FITZGERALD
14 Wall Street, Suite 1603
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 266-2275
E-mail: CFitzgerald@CHFLegal.com
NEWELL BRANDS INC: To Settle Pension Fund Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands 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 28, 2022, that a
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement was
filed in October 2022.
The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior court of New Jersey, Hudson
County, on behalf of all persons who acquired company common stock
pursuant to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden Corporation.
The action was filed on September 6, 2018 and is captioned
"Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The
operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities
laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made
certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
the Registration Statement regarding the company's financial
results, trends, and metrics.
In October 2022, the company entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit and a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Superior
court of New Jersey, Hudson County.
Newell Brands is a leading global consumer goods company based in
Georgia.
NV5 GLOBAL: Settlement in Champlain Towers Suit Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
NV5 Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court issued an order that
approves final settlement of the consolidated amended class action
complaint Champlain Towers South Collapse Litigation.
In August 2021, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed in a case titled In Re: Champlain Towers South Collapse
Litigation, 2021-015089-CA-01, Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial District, Miami-Dade County regarding the collapse of the
Champlain Tower South condominium building in Surfside, Florida.
The case initially claimed negligence by the Champlain Towers South
Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association") led to the
building's partial collapse (the "CTS Collapse").
In November 2021, a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Second Complaint") was filed against firms involved
in the construction of a neighboring building known as
"Eighty-Seven Park" alleging that work at Eighty-Seven Park may
have been a contributing factor in the collapse.
The defendants in the Second Complaint included the developers of
Eighty-Seven Park, the general contractor and four other firms,
including the Company (collectively, the "Eight-Seven Park
Defendants").
The Company provided limited services to the developers of
Eight-Seven Park in 2016, which is more than 5 years prior to the
collapse of the Champlain Tower South Condominium Building.
On June 16, 2022, a settlement agreement was reached to settle
these cases with (a) proposed class of unit owners, (b) invitees,
(c) residents, (d) persons who died or sustained any personal
injury (including, without limitation, emotional distress) as a
result of the CTS Collapse, (e) persons or entities who suffered a
loss of, or damage to, real property or personal property, or
suffered other economic loss, as a result of the CTS Collapse, (f)
representative claimants, and (g) derivative claimants.
The Company's insurers have paid the settlement amount on behalf of
the Company pursuant to the settlement agreement.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May 28,
2022, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the proposed settlement
class.
The Court held a fairness hearing on June 23, 2022, and it issued
an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 24,
2022.
NV5 Inc. provides engineering and consulting services to public and
private entities throughout the United States and around
the world.[BN]
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Pacheco's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS PACHECO, Derivatively on Behalf of Ophthotech
Corporation, Plaintiff v. DAVID R. GUYER, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO,
DAVID E. REDLICK, THOMAS DYRBERG, AXEL BOLTE, MICHAEL J. ROSS,
SAMIR C. PATEL, and NICHOLAS GALAKATOS, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-7999 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
Pacheco's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
The lawsuit is a derivative action brought on behalf of Ophthotech
against eight current and former Ophthotech directors and officers
("Defendants") for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
waste of corporate assets. After Judge Broderick denied their
motion to dismiss, the Defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on Feb. 18, 2020. On Oct. 18, 2021, the parties informed
him that they had reached an agreement to settle the action.
On Feb. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of derivative settlement, with supporting
documents. He asks the Court to (1) grant preliminary approval of
the settlement, finding that it is within the range of what might
be found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, (2) approve the
proposed substance and form of notice to the Class, and (3)
schedule a fairness hearing.
After reviewing the Plaintiffs' submissions, including the
memorandum of law in support of their motion, the stipulation of
settlement, and all other attached exhibits, Judge Broderick finds
that the settlement terms merit preliminary approval. First, the
settlement terms appear to be the result of an extensive and
good-faith process mediated by the Honorable Layn R. Philips (Fmr.)
and Niki Mendoza of Philips ADR, who are nationally recognized
mediators with extensive experience mediating complex stockholder
disputes. Second, the settlement terms do not have any obvious
deficiencies and the corporate governance reforms to which
Ophthotech agreed appear reasonable.
The attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of $2.45
million also appear reasonable at this point; however, additional
materials, like the attorneys' affidavits and billing records, will
necessarily need to be examined prior to final approval. In light
of these factors, Judge Broderick preliminarily approves the
settlement agreement.
Judge Broderick has also reviewed the proposed plan for providing
notice to the Class. He concludes that the form of manner of the
proposed notice constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and meets the requirements of due process. The plan
also satisfies all of the seven elements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B)
identified.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Broderick grants the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. He
ordered the parties to re-submit a text-editable word document of
the proposed order setting forth the settlement procedure and
schedule. Judge Broderick will approve the proposed procedure in a
separate order to be filed together with his Opinion and Order. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions
on the docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p824rch from Leagle.com.
Thomas G. Amon, Law Office of Thomas G. Amon, New York, New York.
Shane Palmesano Sanders -- ssanders@robbinsllp.com -- Robbins LLP,
San Diego, California, Counsels for the Plaintiff.
Jeremy Todd Adler -- JEREMY.ADLER@WILMERHALE.COM -- (New York, New
York), Michael G. Bongiorno -- MICHAEL.BONGIORNO@WILMERHALE.COM --
(New York, New York), Timothy J. Perla --
TIMOTHY.PERLA@WILMERHALE.COM -- (Boston, Massachusetts), Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Jordan David Hershman --
jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New
York, New York, Counsels for the Defendants.
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: 6994 Dawson Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings 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 28, 2022, that an
amended class action complaint was dismissed after the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
On August 31, 2021, a complaint in a class action entitled "6694
Dawson Blvd, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., James Wallace
Woods, Michael J. Mooney, Britt Wright, William V. Conn, Jr., Conn
& Co. Tax Practice, LLC, Conn & Company Consulting, LLC and
Kathleen Lloyd," was filed in the U.S. District court for the
Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff purported to represent a
class of investors in Horizon Private Equity, III, LLC.
Horizon is alleged to be a fraudulent scheme and the plaintiff was
seeking unspecified damages sounding in violations of the Georgia
RICO statute, breach of fiduciary duty, procurement of breach of
fiduciary duty, negligent, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting
fraud, unjust enrichment, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff did not allege Oppenheimer received any of the funds
invested in Horizon, but rather that Oppenheimer's purported
failure to properly supervise its employees allowed the alleged
scheme to occur and continue.
On November 22, 2021, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on a number of grounds. The motion to dismiss was fully
briefed on January 17, 2022, and the court heard oral argument on
the motion on June 21, 2022. On August 17, 2022, the court granted
Oppenheimer's motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On September 21, 2022, 6694 Dawson Blvd, LLC filed a first amended
complaint solely on behalf of itself based on substantially the
same allegations as the original complaint seeking unspecified
damages sounding solely in violations of the Georgia RICO statute.
On October 14, 2022, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint on a number of grounds. On October 21,
2022, 6694 Dawson Blvd, LLC voluntarily dismissed its first amended
complaint without prejudice, thereby terminating the action.
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., through its operating subsidiaries, is a
leading middle market investment bank and full service
broker-dealer based in New York.
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Caroll, et al., Seek Final OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as sHAWN CARROLL, et al. v.
ORANGE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00614-DOC-KES (C. D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of the settlement in this matter, including:
-- the claims submitted by putative class members, objections
and opt-outs, if any, and
-- approval of the attorney fees and costs for attorneys for
the class attorneys.
The parties stipulated to, and requested the Court approve, the
certification of a Class of Plaintiffs as follows:
-- Damages Class is defined as all persons who were
qualified for but were improperly denied General Relief
(GR) based on the improper definition of income and "in-
kind" income, including aid pending appeal, between July
2018 and the present."
The Plaintiffs have filed a concurrent motion for fees and costs.
The agreed upon fees and costs of $150,000 is substantially
discounted below what Plaintiffs could have sought in a fee motion
as the prevailing parties in a contested motion.
The action arises out of Defendant's implementation of regulations
for General Relief eligibility that improperly valued supportive
housing payments as income, thereby disqualifying or terminating
General Relief ("GR") benefits for otherwise qualified persons.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the rights of the
class members when County employees applied an interpretation of
"income" that was inconsistent with and impermissible under federal
law.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants erroneously defined
"income" and "in-kind income" to include rent paid through an
agency or service program in violation of federal regulations
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. sections 2020(e)(3) and 2020(e)(9), as well as
statutory rights under California Welfare and Institutions Code
sections17000 and 10000, and on this basis terminated or denied GR
to the class and denied aid pending appeal.
The action was filed on April 1, 2019 in the District Court for the
Central District of California as a class action for injunctive
relief.
The named plaintiffs are three individuals who sought subsidized
housing after being forced to leave the Santa Ana Riverbed
encampment that was the subject of Orange County Catholic Worker,
et al. v. County of Orange, et al.¸ Case No. 18-cv-00155 DOC-KES.
Each plaintiff was wrongly denied or terminated from GR benefits
during the time period described in the Notice of Settlement
previously approved by the Court.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DCl7Bq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brooke Weitzman, Esq.
William Wise, Esq.
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1535 E 17th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (714) 617–5353
E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
bwise@eldrcenter.org
- and -
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL
1158 26th Street, No. 552
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 393-3055
E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com
- and -
PAUL L. HOFFMAN, Esq. SBN 71244
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN
9415 Culver Boulevard, No. 115
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (310) 396-0731
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Biometric Suit Pending in Illinois Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paylocity Holding 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 4, 2022, that a Biometric Suit
is pending in Illinois Court.
On November 16, 2020, a potential class action complaint was filed
against the Company with the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging
that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees
and other costs.
Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of payroll
and human capital management software solutions based in Illinois.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Due Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings 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 3, 2022, that the investors
motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff are due on December 5,
2022.
On October 4, 2022, a putative securities class action captioned
Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and
Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-5864, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "MJT Securities Action").
The MJT Securities Action asserts claims relating to our public
statements with respect to net new active accounts ("NNA") results
and guidance, and the detection of illegitimately created accounts.
The MJT Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock between February 3, 2021 and
February 1, 2022 (the "Class Period"), and asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and
former Chief Financial Officer.
The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by the
Company during the Class Period were rendered materially false and
misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company's stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices) by the defendants' failure to
disclose that, among other things, the Company's incentive
campaigns were susceptible to fraud and led to the creation of
illegitimate accounts, which allegedly affected the Company's NNA
results and guidance.
The MJT Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on
behalf of the putative class members.
Motions for investors seeking appointment as lead plaintiff are due
on December 5, 2022.
PayPal operates one of the best-known digital payment platforms,
enabling both merchants and consumers to make digital and mobile
payments worldwide. Over 90% of the Company's revenue is generated
through fees on payment transactions.[BN]
PENNSYLVANIA: Bid to Preclude Evidence in Jennings Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUSSEL "JOEY" JENNINGS, by and through his
parents/guardians, Richard and Susan Jennings, et al., Plaintiffs
v. TOM WOLF, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:20-CV-148 (M.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiffs' motion
to preclude evidence.
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by the named
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against Governor Tom Wolf and other Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
officials and agencies. The action was brought on behalf of the
named Plaintiffs, who are individuals with profound and severe
intellectual disabilities residing in state-run residential
facilities in the Commonwealth, by their guardians or
decisionmakers. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have
violated and continue to violate the Plaintiffs' and other putative
class members' civil rights, in that the Commonwealth is closing
two of these residential facilities -- Polk Center and White Haven
Center -- and are transferring the residents to other facilities in
the Commonwealth without their consent.
The parties in the case consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,
and the case was assigned to Judge Carlson on Sept. 20, 2022. At
that time, despite the diligent efforts of the Court, the parties,
and the counsel, a number of time-sensitive, and significant issues
remained to be resolved. These pending questions included a motion
to certify the Plaintiff class as well as two motions seeking
preliminary injunctive relief.
On Oct. 17, 2022, on the eve of this scheduled hearing, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the report and testimony of
one defense witness, Dr. Mark Diorio, as a discovery sanction. On
June 7, 2022, the Defendants proffered a report from Dr. Diorio,
who had not previously been identified as a defense expert. On
these facts, the Plaintiffs launched a twofold objection to Dr.
Diorio's report and testimony, arguing that: (1) the report was
provided beyond the report supplementation deadline; and (2) that
the tardy report could not properly be characterized as a
supplemental report since Dr. Diorio had never previously been
identified as an expert witness.
Judge Carlson concludes that complete exclusion of Dr. Diorio's
report and testimony -- the most extreme sanction afforded by the
rules -- is not appropriate. Aat the time of the preliminary
injunction hearing on Oct. 18, 2022, Dr. Diorio's report and
testimony came as no surprise to the Plaintiffs, and their own
rebuttal of that report largely addressed any perceived prejudice
that they may have otherwise suffered.
Moreover, contrary to the Plaintiffs' suggestions, Judge Carlson
finds that there was no bad faith or willfulness on the part of the
defense in connection with this belated disclosure. Further, Given
that the Plaintiffs elected to forego the chance to address this
question when the issue first arose in June of 2022, they cannot
now seek the most severe of sanctions -- exclusion of evidence.
Finally, Dr. Diorio's report and testimony ultimately were not of
critical importance. Rather, Judge Carlson found that the report
and testimony were simply corroborative of other evidence which the
Court independently credited, and it would have reached the same
conclusions even in the absence of this evidence.
Therefore, taking all of these factors into consideration, the
motion to preclude this evidence will be denied. An appropriate
order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yskjfy9s from Leagle.com.
PIVOTAL RETAIL: Ward, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYKIESHA WARD and JARVIS
STEWART, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. PIVOTAL RETAIL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03182-MHC
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action:
"All Traveling Merchandise Installers employed by
the Defendant since August 11, 2019;"
B. Approving their proposed Notice and Consent to Join and
proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
C. Approving the form and content;
D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative collective member in an
electronically importable and manipulable electronic
format, such as Excel, within seven days after this
Court's Order is entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the
date on which Defendant produces the collective members'
names and contact information, in which collective members
may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in
plaintiffs; and
F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorneys' fee and grant
all other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
The The Plaintiffs worked as hourly Traveling Merchandise
Installers for the Defendant, in Georgia.
The Plaintiffs brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and certain former hourly employees ("Traveling
Merchandise Installers") who worked for the Defendant, who are
similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WyO8GF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsels for the Plaintiffs are:
Joanie Harp, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800
Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: joanie@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Local Counsels for Plaintiffs are:
Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
The Defendant is represented by
Kenneth G. Menendez, Esq.
Andrew J. Kim, Esq.
FREEMAN, MATHIS & GARY, LLP
100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 818-0000
Facsimile: (770) 937-9960
E-mail:kmenendez@fmglaw.com
akim@fmglaw.com
PRO CUSTOM: Huber Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HUBER, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR
LLC d/b/a MOMENTUM SOLAR, Case No. 3:19-cv-01090-RDM (M.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending certain
class certification deadlines.
The relevant deadlines are as follows:
-- Deadline for In Limine Motions: November 4, 2022
-- Deadline for Pretrial December 2, 2022
Memorandum:
-- Deadline for Proposed Jury December 7, 2022
Instructions:
-- Pretrial Conference: December 9, 2022
-- Deadline for Trial Briefs: December 12, 2022
-- Trial: December 19, 2022
The Plaintiff's position is that these deadlines should
either be:
(a) continued for 90 days or
(b) be held in abeyance until the Court rules on the
pending discovery dispute so that the parties may
confer and the Court can set a schedule for the
Plaintiff's class certification motion to be heard.
In this putative class action lawsuit the plaintiff John Huber
alleges that Pro Custom engaged in telemarketing prohibited by the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Court has entered various Orders directing Momentum Solar to
comply with certain discovery obligations and the parties have had
further briefing on discovery disputes, including another
submission as recently as October 24, 2022.
Momentum's obviation of discovery was previously summarized by this
Court's September 24, 2021. The Defendant consistently failed to
obey Orders imposed by this Court that established deadlines by
which Defendant must collect and produce the requested call records
to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UbZ7o8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
QUANTA SERVICES: Benton Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services 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 3, 2022 that the class action
captioned Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et
al., alleging various hour and wage violations against Telecom
Network Specialists, is still pending in court.
In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.
Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta’s sale of TNS in December 2012.
Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies.
The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid
wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and
rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.
In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.
During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment
and other motions, and a bench trial on liability and damages was
held.
Liability and damages have been determined by the trial court, with
the amount of liability for TNS, including interest through the
date of the trial court's orders, determined to be approximately
$9.5 million, which does not include attorneys' fees or costs.
Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damages calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.
In November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and
breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed
many of the individuals in question.
In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary
judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's
demand for indemnity.
The court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the
staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed
the trial court's decision in part and instructed the trial court
to reconsider its ruling.
In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary
judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that
the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed
to the class members that the staffing companies employed.
Quanta currently believes that, due to solvency issues, any
contribution from the staffing companies may not be substantial.
Quanta Services, Inc. a leading provider of specialty contracting
services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily to the
electric power, oil and gas and communications industries in the
United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America and select other
international markets. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Loses Bid to Junk Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape 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
court denied the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint filed
by the defendants. The case is ongoing.
Between January 5, 2021 and May 4, 2021, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District court for the
Northern District of California by purported purchasers of company
securities. The court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff and counsel.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on June 21, 2021,
which alleges a purported class that includes all persons who
purchased or acquired its securities between November 27, 2020 and
April 14, 2021.
The consolidated complaint names the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Technology
Officer as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants purportedly made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, including information
regarding the company's battery technology. On January 14, 2022,
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
substantially denied and the case continues.
Quantumscape Corporation is a developing next-generation battery
technology for EVs and other applications based in California.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Seeks to Include Two Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA STEWART and ZULEKHA
ABDUL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and
aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the the
Plaintiff will move the Court on November 28, 2022 to modify the
order granting Class Certification.
This motion is filed concurrently with Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to modify the order to include
two subclasses based on Plaintiff Pamela Stewart and Plaintiff
Zulekha Abdul's newly added derivative claims, which pose common
questions and are suitable for certification as they are entirely
based on the theories already certified.
Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. provides professional
analytic or diagnostic services for the medical profession.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hhqL4r
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
Hali M. Anderson, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-0800
Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
vcordero@grahamhollis.com
handerson@grahamhollis.com
REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit for Helping Lessors Raise Rent Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briahn Hawkins and William Joy, writing for WFAA, report that a
Richardson, Texas-based company is being accused of helping
multiple leasing companies raise their rent prices, according to a
lawsuit filed in federal court.
RealPage is now listed in a Class Action Complaint, along with some
of the businesses they've allegedly helped, according to documents
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
In a copy of the complaint obtained by WFAA, the plaintiffs say
RealPage has provided software and data analytics to leasing
companies, or lessors, since around 2016 to help them avoid
competition and raise prices. The complaint says the company
"openly boasts" about how they help "'balance supply and demand to
maximize [Lessors'] revenue growth.'"
The complaint says lessors would "outsource daily pricing and
ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage. The company allegedly took
that data, created a standard based on the properties' "class" or
characteristics, and used a common formula to set the prices. In
short, RealPage created an instant monopoly on price setting,
allowing rents to be pushed artificially higher.
The plaintiffs say RealPage bragged about setting the lessors'
prices "as though we own them ourselves." The lawsuit also says
that the company helped apartments across a market stagger leases
so there would never be a downturn.
The lawsuit comes after a ProPublica report stated the company was
using YieldStar to help set apartment prices across the country. A
RealPage representative sent a statement to WFAA denying the
allegations, saying the article "contains inaccuracies and is
misleading."
"Rent prices are determined by various factors including supply and
demand as well as each property owner's unique circumstances," the
statement read. "The ProPublica article repeatedly takes
information out of context and ignores key facts to craft a
distorted picture of how revenue management software works."
Attorney and Texas A&M Law antitrust professor Randy Gordon
believes the key will be if the plaintiffs can prove an agreement
between the companies.
"It's the agreement to use that data and what it's predicting
that's illegal," he said. "That's always a significant challenge."
The suit mentions RealPage told landlords to follow their pricing
at least 80% of the time.
"There's a lot of smoke and what the plaintiffs will have to show
is that there is actually fire there," Gordon said.
The lawsuit also claims RealPage also told landlords to not
negotiate and push prices higher even if it meant vacancies. It's
unsurprising to Sandy Rollins, the executive director of the Texas
Tenants Union.
"It's disturbing. It's very disturbing to see this industry operate
in this way," she said. "Tenants are just at the mercy of the
markets and of their landlords and their landlords don't have
mercy."
The nine lessors named in the complaint include a company
headquartered in Dallas. According to the complaint, Lincoln
Property Company is the second largest manager of multifamily
rental real estates in the U.S. They're said to own over 210,000
units nationally and make "billions of dollars per year."
Outside of Lincoln, the other lessors named are headquartered in
states like Tennessee, California and Washington. The plaintiffs
named in the complaint are said to be from California and
Washington. They include major landlords like GreyStar and the
ProPublica story mentions the software was initially tested by
Houston-based Camden.
The plaintiffs said in the complaint that the alleged deal with
RealPage mainly affects the military community.
"With respect to men and women on active duty, military bases often
do not provide "on-post" housing, or have no available housing,
requiring personnel to rent apartments," the complaint reads. "Many
veterans depend upon residential leases for their housing, often
spending over half of household income on rent. Rising rents
increase levels of homelessness." [GN]
REED HEIN: Adolph, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN ADOLPH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; KERRI ADOLPH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES d/b/a TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM; MAKAYMAX INC.;
HEIN & SONS INDUSTRIES, INC.; BRANDON REED, individually; and
TREVOR HEIN, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-01378-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstei entered an order:
1. granting stipulated motion to certify class of:
"All persons who paid fees to Reed Hein for services to
terminate their timeshare obligations, except those
persons who received refunds of the fees that they paid;"
2. certifying Brian Adolph to serve as class representative
for the certified class;
3. certifying Gregory Albert to serve as class counsel for
the certified class;
4. directing the Parties, within fourteen 14 of the date of
this Order, to meet and confer to determine the most
cost-effective and efficient means to provide adequate
notice to the class, and advise the Court of any such
agreement;
Reed Hein & Associate offers consultations to timeshare owners as
they assess their timeshare exit opportunities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t1THQj at no extra charge.[CC]
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks Leave to Re-File Bid to Decertify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John McCurley,
Individually and and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-00986-RSH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court
granting it leave to re-file its motion to decertify class.
Royal filed the bid because materially changed circumstances
arising from the evidentiary development of this case require the
Court to reassess whether class certification remains appropriate
under Fed.R.Civ. P 23(c)(1)(C), which permits the Court to
decertify a class anytime before final judgment.
Additionally, while the expiration of the deadline to file motions
under a scheduling order is irrelevant to the Court’s
consideration of decertification under Fed.R.Civ. P 23(c)(1)(C),
good cause exists for the Court to consider the Motion and address
the merits of arguments supporting decertification that were timely
presented to the Court in March 2020, and found by the Court to be
meritorious but disregarded only as moot given the entry of summary
judgment.
The issues raised by Royal and the Court about the insufficiency of
classwide evidence in this case trigger the Court's duty to ensure
that the class certified years earlier remains in compliance with
the requirements of Rule 23.
Royal submits that the Court's election to deny the motion to
decertify based solely upon the passage of the cut-off date in the
scheduling order raises the following controlling question of law
for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.
Royal Seas Cruises is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WskJxZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com
- and-
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ml@kazlg.com
- and-
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard W. Epstein, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
- and-
BRIAN R. CUMMINGS, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
401 E. Jackson St., Suite 3650
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 769-7020
Facsimile: (813) 426-8582
E-mail: Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
- and-
GERMAIN D. LABAT, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3004
Telephone: (424) 204-7700
Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
E-mail: Germain.Labat@gmlaw.com
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Certify Query for Interlocutory Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John McCurley,
Individually and and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-00986-RSH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a question for immediate interlocutory
review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b), in this court's
Order (ECF 259) declining to consider Defendant's Motion to
Decertify the Class.
Royal submits that the Court's election to deny the motion to
decertify based solely upon the passage of the cut-off date in the
scheduling order raises the following controlling question of law
for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.
Royal Seas Cruises is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DXtV6i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com
- and-
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ml@kazlg.com
- and-
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard W. Epstein, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
- and-
BRIAN R. CUMMINGS, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
401 E. Jackson St., Suite 3650
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 769-7020
Facsimile: (813) 426-8582
E-mail: Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
- and-
GERMAIN D. LABAT, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3004
Telephone: (424) 204-7700
Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
E-mail: Germain.Labat@gmlaw.com
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Suits Over CA Labor Code Violation Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 25, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside
approved petition to consolidate the class action suits and
recommends that a judge be assigned to determine and hear the
coordinated cases.
On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, permit required
meal and rest breaks and provide accurate wage statements, among
other claims.
On September 2, 2020, the class action lawsuit was amended to
include two additional proposed class representatives. This
lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California's Private
Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments
(Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc, et al.;
Case No RIC1804127) (the "Quiroz Guerrero Action").
On July 29, 2021, September 17, 2021, and October 19, 2021, other
former restaurant hourly employees filed complaints in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco,
the County of Los Angeles, and the County of Contra Costa alleging
causes of action substantially similar to the allegations made in
the Quiroz Guerrero Action (collectively, with the Quiroz Guerrero
Action, the "Class Action Litigations"), which cases may be
consolidated with the Quiroz Guerrero Action.
On May 11, 2022 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the
plaintiffs in the Class Action Litigations agreeing to a $6.0
million legal settlement.
On June 8, 2022, the plaintiffs submitted a Petition for
Coordination and Motion for Stay to the Chairperson of the Judicial
Council, requesting assignment of a judge to determine whether it
is appropriate to coordinate the Class Action Litigations to
effectuate settlement approval in one venue.
On September 12, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Riverside, granted the petition to
consolidate the Class Action Litigations and recommended to the
Chair of the Judicial Council that a judge of the Riverside County
Superior Court be assigned to hear and determine the coordinated
cases.
Ruth's Hospitality Group is a restaurant company with a focus on
American steakhouse restaurants.
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Ct. Modifies Class Cert Briefing & Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero
entered an order modifying the class certification briefing
schedule and hearing date as follows:
1. Deadline to file the Reply is: November 22, 2022
2. Hearing will be held on the January 6, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
on:
3. The further case management January 6, 2023
conference will be held on:
4. Updated case management statement December 29, 2022
due:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fIJi99 at no extra charge.[CC]
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Withdraws Deal to Mediate in Kelley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient 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 November 1, 2022, that the
Company withdrew its deal to mediate in the Kelley class suit after
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Viking River
Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.
On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint
against SNI in Merced County Superior Court in California. Ms.
Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a
temporary staffing company. Ms. Kelley has brought suit for
purported violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code on her own behalf, and on
behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees of SNI. Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims
for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and
rest break premiums, failure to timely pay final wages upon
termination, non-compliant wage statements, and unreimbursed
business expenses. Following motion practice, Ms. Kelley amended
her original pleading, asserting the same causes of action, and SNI
filed a responsive pleading. The parties then entered the discovery
process.
On April 26, 2021, the same law firm representing Ms. Kelley filed
an additional notice with the State of California of the intent to
pursue a claim on a representative basis pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). This notice was
served on behalf of Patrick Walters, an employee of SNI. The notice
states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Mr. Walters as well
as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and
former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired
directly or through staffing agencies.
The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Mr. Walters and
the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed
to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and
for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage
statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary
business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor
Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
On July 30, 2021, Mr. Walters filed a Complaint in Merced County
Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in his PAGA notice.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response.
On June 10, 2021, Sofia Rodriguez filed notice with the State of
California of the intent to pursue a claim on a representative
basis pursuant to PAGA. The notice was served on behalf of Ms.
Rodriguez, who worked at SNI through One Source Staffing Solutions,
Inc. for five months in 2020. The notice states the intent to
pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Rodriguez as well as other alleged
aggrieved employees, identified as all non-exempt employees who
worked for Defendants in the State of California, and who were paid
on an hourly basis. The notice alleges that SNI failed to allow Ms.
Rodriguez and the other alleged aggrieved employees to take
statutorily required meal and rest periods. The notice further
alleges that Defendants suffered and permitted Ms. Rodriguez and
other alleged aggrieved employees to work off the clock, failed to
pay for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate
for minimum and overtime wages, failed to issue compliant wage
statements, and failed to pay wages owed upon termination of
employment, in violation of the California Labor Code. Ms.
Rodriguez also asserts that she was taken off the schedule and not
returned to work after complaining about the alleged wage and hour
violations set forth in the PAGA notice.
On August 17, 2021, Ms. Rodriguez filed a Complaint in Stanislaus
County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA
notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response.
Previously, SNI had agreed to attempt a joint mediation of the
Kelley, Walters, and Rodriguez matters, which was scheduled for
August 2022.
Before the mediation occurred, however, on June 15, 2022, the
United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River
Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), in which the Court
ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of an
arbitration agreement that waives an employee's right to bring
individual claims under PAGA, and that an individual with such an
agreement to arbitrate does not have standing to pursue the
remaining non-individual claims in Court.
As a result of the decision, SNI withdrew its agreement to
mediate.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SINGTEL OPTUS: Data Breach Class Action Investigations Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eray Eliacik, writing for Dataconomy, reports that "How to get
Optus Data Breach compensation?" is starting to ask, especially
after the billions' worth of Optus Data Breach class action rumors.
Is it possible? According to experts, the answer is yes. Any class
action lawsuit against Optus over the data breach that put users at
risk of identity theft is likely to be successful. It could lead to
billions in payouts, making it Australia's biggest and most
expensive case. If you want to learn how to claim, keep reading.
Data breaches and hacks are today's biggest problems. Check out the
latest data breaches and hacks before we continue: CHI Health data
breach, Facebook data breach, Uber security data breach, American
Airlines data breach, Medibank cyber attack, and Binance hack.
HOW TO GET OPTUS DATA BREACH COMPENSATION?
Optus was the target of a cyber attack on September 22, 2022, which
exposed the private data of its clients. Customers of Optus may
have had their names, dates of birth, email addresses, driver's
license numbers, Medicare card numbers, and passport information
exposed. All affected customers, both present and past, will be
contacted by Optus. But Optus is not the only one trying to
contact; the compensation process starts here. To get Optus Data
Breach compensation, first, a lawsuit is needed.
Some law firms have already started their Optus Data Breach class
action investigations. In Australia's largest-ever privacy breach,
law firms filed a representative complaint against Optus for
revealing the personal information of millions of clients.
Companies are required by the Privacy Act to take reasonable
precautions to safeguard any personal information they possess
against unauthorized access, abuse, and an interception. They could
be subject to fines and asked to make restitution if they don't.
According to the representative complaints, Optus neglected to
safeguard its customers' personal information and ensure that
information that was no longer needed was destroyed.
How much could the Optus Data Breach compensation be worth? There
is good reason to think a class action would be successful, given
that the Optus data leak has been proven. If this is the case, a
court may impose exemplary (or punitive) damages to convey a
message to businesses handling individuals' private information, as
well as compensatory damages to cover the time and expense of
replacing identifying documents.
Even while the average economic loss per consumer may be modest,
when the prospective class-action pool is large enough -- up to 10
million plaintiffs -- compensatory damages -- even in the absence
of exemplary damages -- Optus Data Breach compensation could
potentially reach billions of dollars.
"It hasn't really been tested in the courts, but it's likely the
maximum fines of $2.22 million will be applied on a per "act or
practice" basis, ie., per breach. It's unlikely the fines would be
specifically multiplied by each individual affected."
Gilbert and Tobin partner Simon Burns
If the charges were assessed per person, the sum would be
absolutely astronomical: $2.2 million in fines multiplied by 10
million customers would equal $22,000,000,000,000, or $22,000
trillion, which is over 275 times the size of the global economy.
However, this amount is impossible to happen. According to Burns,
the possible Optus Data Breach Settlement amount will be up to
$5,000-$20,000 per individual. It is potentially a very big number.
It means Optus will have to pay approximately a minimum of $5
billion and a maximum of $20 billion.
One thing is certain; it will be a record-breaking case in terms of
compensation. Because of this, a law firm or class action funder
would find this a very appealing idea.
OPTUS DATA BREACH CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATIONS
Millions of present and former Optus account holders were affected
by a significant customer data breach, and law firms are looking
into possible legal action against Optus. To get compensation,
first things first, a lawsuit is a must.
The inquiry into a prospective class action lawsuit against Optus
to perhaps seek compensation for those affected by the data leak is
still in its early stages. Those affected by the data breach do not
need to act now. But you can register your interest and strength
the law firms' claim.
Optus Data Breach Class Action investigations' main focus is
getting the highest Optus Data Breach compensation
These two firms already start the investigation:
Slater and Gordon
Maurice Blackburn
You can simply click these links and register the investigations.
CAN YOU REGISTER BOTH OF THE OPTUS DATA BREACH CLASS ACTION
INVESTIGATIONS?
Even if you have previously registered your interest with another
legal firm, any current or former Optus customer can do so to
receive updates on the inquiry as it moves forward.
WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?
In a class action, one person, known as the representative
plaintiff, asserts legal rights on behalf of a larger group of
persons who have experienced similar harm. Even though the value of
individual claims is minor, putting claims together and pursuing
them collectively is economically advantageous due to the entire
value of the claim.
OPTUS DATA BREACH SUMMARY
The personal information of Optus's customers was exposed as a
result of a cyberattack on September 22, 2022.
Customers of Optus may have had information exposed, including
name, date of birth, email addresses, driver's license, Medicare
card, and passport numbers.
The Government has designated ACCS's Scamwatch as the initial point
of contact for information regarding what customers can do to
secure their information in response to the incident. The current
scams that make mention of the Optus breach are also included on
Scamwatch.
The Government is carefully investigating all options to safeguard
and reissue victims' identity documents in the wake of the cyber
attack while also attempting to lessen the effects of the Optus
data breach.
You can get detailed guidance from ASIC's Moneysmart website.
OUTCOMES OF DATA BREACHES: EQUIFAX & T-MOBILE
The credit reporting firm Equifax acknowledged on September 7,
2017, that one of its computer networks had had a data leak that
had exposed the personal information of 143 million clients, which
eventually rose to 147 million. These records included information
about the customers' names, residences, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, and credit card numbers, all of which may be
exploited for fraud and identity theft.
Equifax agreed to establish a fund to provide customers with free
credit monitoring, identity theft protection, and cash compensation
of up to $20,000 per to people harmed by the event, per the deal's
conditions. Additionally, the company must pay court fees and
government fines.
The cybersecurity vulnerability was first disclosed by T-Mobile and
was made public on August 16, 2021. According to reports, almost 77
million consumers' personally identifiable information was stolen
due to the T-Mobile data breach. This contained database data such
as addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's
license numbers, unique IMEIs and identification codes for client
phones, etc.
If granted, the $350 million T-Mobile deal will represent US
history's second-largest payment for a data breach. [GN]
STAR NURSING: Class Action Settlement in Massey Wins Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARAE MASSEY, v. STAR
NURSING, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-01482-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting the parties'
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The Settlement Agreement defines the class as:
"All non-exempt hourly employees employed by Star Nursing in
California who, at any time from March 2, 2017 through the
date the Court enters an Order granting preliminary approval
of the Settlement, worked one or more workweeks in which
they were paid overtime and received a stipend."
With respect to numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1), Class Counsel
indicates that joinder of all members is particularly impracticable
under these circumstances because the Settlement Class is composed
of approximately 425 travel nurses who are working in various
states across the country at any given time.
If final approval is granted, the parties will be required to file
a Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with this District's
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements
8 and at a date set by the Court at the time of the final approval
hearing. Counsel should prepare accordingly:
Class data to be provided to November 7, 2022
Settlement Administrator:
Class Notice to be sent by: November 23, 2022
Class Counsel to file their motion December 19, 2022
for attorneys' fees and costs and
Class Representative awards:
Motion for Final Approval to be December 19, 2022
filed by:
Postmark deadline to submit January 23, 2023
objection or request for
exclusion:
Fairness and Final Approval February 23, 2023
Hearing:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UoybkB at no extra charge.[CC]
TAL EDUCATION: Parties' Settlement Stipulation and Agreement OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 20-F/A Report Amendment
No. 1 for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the
court approved final judgment of parties' stipulation and agreement
of settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuits.
On June 18, 2018 and July 17, 2018, two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against our company and certain officers
of our company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, which was later consolidated into one.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to
our ADSs from April 26 to June 13, 2018.
On June 24, 2021, we reached a stipulation and agreement of
settlement with the plaintiffs.
On November 30, 2021, the court issued a final judgment approving
the parties' stipulation and agreement of settlement.
TAL Education Group is into educational services and is based in
Haidian, Beijing.
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Bell's Claims v. Criminal Justice Department
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD D. BELL, #01889509, Plaintiff v. KEITH GORSUCH,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-358-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex.), Judge
Jeremy Kernodle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Tyler Division, dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without
prejudice.
Mr. Bell, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding
pro se, brings the civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636. On Aug. 28,
2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court dismisses the case without prejudice
for failure to comply with an order of the Court.
The Plaintiff filed timely objections. In his objections, the
Plaintiff states that he is a member of the class action lawsuit,
civil case no. 6:20cv302, and explains that he never filed a pro se
civil rights lawsuit. However, Judge Kernodle finds that on June
30, 2020, Judge Mitchell severed case number 6:20-cv-302 into 10
individual lawsuits, including the present case, after receiving
individual motions to proceed in forma pauperis from those 10
plaintiffs. Judge Mitchell then granted the Plaintiff in forma
pauperis status in the present case and ordered him to submit an
initial, partial filing fee of $16. He failed to submit the fee as
ordered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's contentions concerning a
class action lawsuit are misplaced.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in the case and the
Magistrate Judge's Report, Judge Kernodle has determined that the
Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and the Plaintiff's
objections are without merit. Accordingly, he adopts the Report of
the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the District Court. He
dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to
comply with a Court order. In the interests of justice, he suspends
the statute of limitations for a period of 60 days from the date of
Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/344x8tdm from Leagle.com.
TRANS NATIONAL: McCrackin Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY MCCRACKIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS NATIONAL CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-015969 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
October 26, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff claims that she received a collection letter
internally dated October 17, 2022 from the Defendant attempting to
collect an alleged debt, which he has incurred from a transaction
between him and Anesco North Broward, LLC primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes. However, the Represented Itemization
Date on the Defendant's collection letter falsely represents the
character of the Consumer debt because the Represented Itemization
Date is not an itemization date permitted by Code of Financial
Regulations Section 1006.34(b)(3). Allegedly, the Defendant's use
of the Represented Itemization Date wrongfully causes the least
sophisticated consumer to falsely believe that the Represented
Itemization Date is the Last Statement Date, the Charge Off Date,
the Last Payment Date, the Transaction Date, or the Judgment Date,
says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a judgment against the
Defendant seeking to recover statutory damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
appropriate under the circumstances.
Trans National Credit Corporation is a debt collector. [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
Tel: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV; and 24 DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01077-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate for a court order extending the class
certification deadlines by 90 days and vacating or resetting the
hearing date as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file April 21, 2023
a motion for class certification
will be:
2. The Defendants' deadline to file May 19, 2023
their class certification
opposition will be:
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file June 16, 2023
her reply will be:
4. The March 28, 2023 hearing date for class certification
will be vacated or reset.
The current deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class
certification is January 20, 2023. Defendants' deadline to file
their class certification opposition is February 15, 2023.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply is March 15, 2023. A
hearing date for class certification is set for March 28, 2023.
On September 21, 2022, the Parties participated in a mediation in
good faith. While the Parties made considerable progress in
settlement negotiations and narrowing the issues in the case, the
Parties were unable to reach a settlement.
According to defense counsel, Defendants have been engaged in
significant fact-finding and investigation both prior to and since
the conclusion of the September 21, 2022 mediation.
The Defendants assert the proper statutory period is two years, but
in the interest of compromise, have agreed to provide exemplar
records going back to 2015.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Oct. 24, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WGiAPo at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
cmiller@lelawfirm.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy M. Huynh, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 768.0650
Facsimile: (510) 768.0651
E-mail: Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Kaytlin E. Kopen, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
E-mail: Kayt.Kopen@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
E-mail: Michael.Hayes@huschblackwell.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to Nov. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, et al., v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order that
Plaintiffs' motion for a two-week extension of the deadline to file
their Reply in support of class certification is granted.
-- The deadline is now November 23, 2022.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's class certification motion,
previously set for December 6, 2022 is continued one
week, and shall take place on December 13, 2022 at 2:00
p.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zP3VHB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
Aaron R. Modiano (pro hac vice)
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
aaron.modiano@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Casa Libre Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Casa Libre Freedom House,
et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright,
II entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
This is a putative class action challenging how the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service (USCIS) handle and process Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ)
applications.
The Plaintiffs are six individuals who submitted applications for
SIJ status and six organizations who provide legal and other
assistance to such individuals, and the Defendants are Alejandro
Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of USCIS; and
USCIS itself.
The individual Plaintiffs bringing suit in this matter are:
-- Rene Gabriel Flores Merino, twenty years old; SIJ petition
filed November 23, 2020; SIJ status petition granted
November 9, 2021.
-- Hildner Eduardo Coronado Ajtun, twenty years old; SIJ
petition filed March 12, 2020; SIJ status petition granted
January 5, 2021.
-- Carlos Abel Hernandez Arevalo, twenty years old; SIJ
petition filed December 8, 2021; petition remains pending.
-- Axel Yafeth Mayorga Aguilera, twenty years old; SIJ
petition filed August 29, 2019; SIJ status petition granted
March 13, 2020.
-- Rene Isai Serrano Montes, twenty-one years old; SIJ
petition filed August 30, 2021; application pending when
FAC was filed; SIJ status petition approved June 2, 2022.
-- Pamela Alejandra Rivera Cambara; SIJ petition filed July 1,
2021; application remains pending.
The organizational Plaintiffs are Casa Libre, El Rescate, Clergy
and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE), Salvadoran American
Leadership & Educational (CARECEN), and La Raza Centro Legal, Inc.
(“La Raza”). These organizations provide free social and legal
services to SIJ petitioners, and, as alleged, the Defendants'
challenged policy and procedure leaves the organizations' SIJ
clients without stable incomes and housing, diverting the limited
resources of these organizations from
provision of services for other low-income clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htX9AH at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Jan, 29, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Center For Leadership And
Justice et al v. United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01728 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Robert M. Spector entered an order on motion for extension of
time as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' opposition to December 27, 2022
HUD's motion for judgment on
the pleadings is due on or
before:
-- Completion of remaining fact January 14, 2023
discovery (limited to the
subpoena served by HUD on
Open Communities Alliance)
is due on or before:
-- HUD's reply in support of January 28, 2023
its motion for judgment on
the pleadings is due on or
before:
-- Motions for Summary Judgment January 29, 2023
and Class Certification are
due on or before:
-- Responses to Motions for March 28, 2023
Class Certification and
Summary Judgment are due
on or before:
-- Reply Briefs in Support of April 27, 2023
Motions for Class
Certification and Summary
Judgment are due on or
before:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Housing/Accommodations.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is
one of the executive departments of the U.S. federal government. It
administers federal housing and urban development laws.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order for an
extension of time, to and through January 24, 2023, to file their
initial response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel.
On July 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, bringing
claims for a writ of mandamus, ultra vires action, violations of
the Administrative Procedure Act, and a writ of habeas corpus
against Defendants.
On September 20, 2022, the Defendants moved for an extension of
time to respond to the Complaint and the Court granted
Defendants' motion (Sept. 21, 2022, Min Order).
On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and a motion to certify the class and a motion to appoint lead.
Further, this motion is filed only two weeks after the October 11,
2022, deadline, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that
this motion causes undue prejudice to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
consent to the requested relief. Furthermore, this motion is being
filed in good faith and not for purposes of gaining any unfair
advantage through delay, the Defendant contends.
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WzOqx2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephanie R. Johnson, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
E-mail: Stephanie.Johnson5@usdoj.gov
US BANCORP: Settlement Deal to Resolve Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. BANCORP 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 settlement
agreement signed by Visa U.S.A Inc. to resolve the class action
claims associated with the multidistrict interchange litigation is
pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "Multi-District Litigation").
Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard International (collectively, the
"Card Brands") are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the
practices of the Card Brands (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A.
member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc.
under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of
the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising
from the Visa Litigation.
The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific
maximum amount. Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions
to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by
Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account
for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other
liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation
contingent liability.
In October 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multidistrict interchange
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "Multi-District Litigation").
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
approval of that settlement and remanded the matter to the district
court.
Thereafter, the case was split into two putative class actions, one
seeking damages (the "Damages Action") and a separate class action
seeking injunctive relief only (the "Injunctive Action").
In September 2018, Visa signed a new settlement agreement,
superseding the original settlement agreement, to resolve the
Damages Action.
The Damages Action settlement was approved by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York but is now on
appeal.
The Injunctive Action, which generally seeks changes to Visa rules,
is still pending.
U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware.
US RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Following Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Pearson, writing for Radiology Business, reports that patients
whose private data may have been stolen by a cyberprowler last
December have filed a class action lawsuit against the radiology
practice whose IT systems may have been hacked.
That would be 80-hospital, investor-backed US Radiology Specialists
(USRS) based in Raleigh, N.C.
The representative action, filed in a federal court in Delaware
Oct. 24, refers to USRS affiliate groups affected not only as
previously reported in North Carolina, Arizona and Texas but also
in Colorado.
Plaintiffs Ariann J-Hanna and Nicole Pyle, both of Tucson, Ariz.,
charge -- "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated" -- that USRS failed in their responsibility to secure and
protect sensitive patient information.
The records potentially exposed to someone with criminal intent
included first and last names, Social Security numbers, drivers'
license information, dates of birth, health insurance information,
personal addresses and medical treatment information, according to
the Oct. 24 complaint as accessed via ClassAction.org.
The action also takes issue with the lag between the December 2021
breach and the notification to patients, which didn't go out until
nine months later, according to the suit.
"As a result of the Data Breach and Defendant's failure to promptly
notify Plaintiffs and Class members thereof," the complaint states,
"Plaintiffs and Class members are at imminent and substantial risk
of experiencing various types of misuse of their Private
Information in the coming years, including but not limited to,
unauthorized credit card charges, unauthorized access to email
accounts, identity theft." [GN]
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Court OK's Settlement Deal Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric & Power 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 4, 2022, that the
final settlement agreement in a shareholder derivative action is
approved by the State Court of Common Pleases in Richland County,
South Carolina in June 2022.
In September 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed
against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the State Court Derivative Case).
In September 2018, this action was consolidated with another action
in the Business Court Pilot Program in Richland County. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement
of the NND Project, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched
by bonuses they were paid in connection with the project.
In January 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.
In February 2019, one action was voluntarily dismissed. In March
2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
In April 2020, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the
South Carolina Court of Appeals and a petition with the Supreme
Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of
the motion to dismiss.
In June 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which was granted in July
2020.
In August 2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the
defendants' petition seeking appellate review.
In August 2020, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with
the South Carolina Court of Appeals relating to the July 2020
ruling by the court, which was denied in October 2020.
In November 2020, SCANA filed a petition of certiorari with the
Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the
denial of SCANA's motion to dismiss.
This petition was denied in June 2021.
Also in June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in
the amount of $33 million to resolve this matter, subject to court
approval.
This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be utilized
to satisfy a portion of the Federal Court Merger Case and the State
Court Merger Case discussed below.
In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement and
filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County,
South Carolina for approval.
In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County,
South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement
with the funds utilized to satisfy a portion of the State Court
Merger Case.
Based in Richmond, Va., Virginia Electric and Power Company --
http://www.dom.com/-- is a regulated public utility that
generates, transmits and distributes electricity for sale in
Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: State Court Merger Case Gets Final Settlement OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric & Power 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 4, 2022, that the
State Court of Common Pleases issued final settlement approval of
the State Court Merger Case.
In May 2019, a case was filed against certain former executive
officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas
in Richland County, South Carolina (the State Court Merger Case).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross
mismanagement of the NND Project, were unjustly enriched by the
bonuses they were paid in connection with the project and breached
their fiduciary duties to secure and obtain the best price for the
sale of SCANA.
In May 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court of
South Carolina by the non-South Carolina defendants.
In June 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.
In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court.
In February 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle as
described above relating to this matter as well as the Federal
Court Merger Case and the State Court Derivative Case.
In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as
described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court
Derivative Case and the Federal Court Merger Case, and filed with
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
for approval.
In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County,
South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement.
In June 2022, Dominion Energy utilized the $33 million of insurance
proceeds from the State Court Derivative Case settlement, the
issuance of 0.4 million shares of its common stock and paid $2
million in cash to satisfy its obligations under the settlement
agreement.
Based in Richmond, Va., Virginia Electric and Power Company --
http://www.dom.com/-- is a regulated public utility that
generates, transmits and distributes electricity for sale in
Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Warren City Lawsuit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric & Power 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 4, 2022, that the
court dismissed the purported class action against Dominion Energy,
SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA,
for violation of fiduciary shareholders' duties, related to the
final approval by the State Court of Common Pleases in Richland
County, South Carolina.
In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions.
Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind
the merger.
In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).
The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit.
In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit (the Federal Court
Merger Case).
In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC,
which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City
of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable
fraud claim.
In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss.
In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in
August 2020.
In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the
amount of $63 million to resolve this matter as well as the State
Court Merger Case described below, subject to court approval.
This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be partially
satisfied by the State Court Derivative Case settlement described
above.
In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as
described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court
Derivative Case and the State Court Merger Case, and filed with the
State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for
approval.
In June 2022, this case was dismissed in connection with the final
approval by the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County,
South Carolina of the settlement agreement.
Based in Richmond, Va., Virginia Electric and Power Company --
http://www.dom.com/-- is a regulated public utility that
generates, transmits and distributes electricity for sale in
Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Rice Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN RICE, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. Walbridge Aldinger, LLC, Case
No. 2:22-cv-11790-DPH-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and
authorizing notice to be sent (by mail, email, and text) to:
"All individuals employed by or working on behalf of
Walbridge and paid according to its straight time for
overtime pay plan in the past three years."
To facilitate the Court-approved notice, Rice requests the Court:
(1) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to Rice's
Motion;
(2) approve the email and text message scripts attached to
Rice's Motion;
(3) order Walbridge to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 14
days;
(4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
Members to join this case;
(5) authorize an identical reminder notice halfway through
the notice period; and
(6) authorize Class Counsel to contact certain Putative Class
Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
forms return as undeliverable to obtain updated contact
information albridge required Rice to submit his
timesheets to a Walbridge agent onsite at the
construction site for approval.
Rice satisfies his modest factual burden to demonstrate he and the
Putative Class Members were together victims of a common policy or
plan (Walbridge's straight time for overtime pay scheme) alleged to
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Walbridge allegedly misclassified certain workers as independent
contractors.
Rice and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40
hours a week. In fact, at Walbridge's direction, Rice and the
Putative Class Members frequently worked 50-70 hours per week and
sometimes seven days per week, the lawsuit says.
Despite requiring Rice and the Putative Class Members to regularly
work more than 40 hours per week, Walbridge did not pay overtime
compensation at one and one half (1.5) times the regular hourly
rate of pay, electing instead to pay only straight time for hours
worked over 40 hours in a week.
Walbridge is one of the leading industrial contractors in the
United States, and is engaged in providing construction support and
services across a variety of industries, including in
manufacturing.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fEUhR6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
J OSEPHSON D UNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
WALMART INC: Seeks Modification of Class Cert Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guzman, et al., v. Walmart
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants
move to modify the Court's October 7, 2022 Order modifying the
schedule for class certification.
Walmart requests the Court to extend its deadline to oppose
Plaintiffs' forthcoming class certification motion, Plaintiffs'
reply, and the hearing, as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed Date
--Opposition to Class Jan. 16, 2023 Jan. 30, 2023
Certification
--Reply Motion for Class Jan. 30, 2023 Feb. 13, 2023
Certification
--Hearing on Motion for Feb. 8, 2023 March 1, 2023
Class Certification
The Parties met and conferred about this via telephone on October
13, 2022, October 21, 2022, and October 24, 2022.
The Plaintiffs' counsel initially indicated they would not oppose
Walmart's motion so long as Walmart agreed to seek a 60-day
extension of all remaining dates.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that they would oppose any
request for a time modification in this case.
The Plaintiffs' counsel explained that Walmart declined to provide
a continuance in another matter Plaintiffs' counsel is litigating
against Walmart (in which Walmart is represented by other counsel),
and as a consequence, Plaintiffs' counsel would not agree to any
time modifications in this case.
On February 23, 2022, the Court issued a Case Management Scheduling
Order setting an October 5, 2022 deadline for Plaintiffs to file a
motion for class certification.
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion for
an Order to Continue Trial. The Plaintiffs sought six-month
extensions of the class certification deadline and all other
deadlines.
Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to continue the hearing on class
certification to June 24, 2023, with the motion due on April 5,
2023, opposition due on May 16, 2023, and reply due on June 7,
2023.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery store.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fC34TZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, PC
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Laura Franklin, Esq.
FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
555 S. Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: (831) 755-1311
Facsimile: (8310 755-1319
E-mail: bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com
lfranklin@fandslegal.com
olympia@diversitylaw.com
christine@diversitylaw.com
josie@fandslegal.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
alis.moon@ogletree.com
WARNER BROS: CPPB, Todorovski Class Actions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery 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 3, 2022, that the
two purported class action suits captioned Collinsville Police
Pension Board v. Discovery, Inc., et al. and Todorovski v.
Discovery, Inc., et al. are ongoing in the Southern District of New
York.
Between September 23, 2022 and October 24, 2022, two purported
class action lawsuits (Collinsville Police Pension Board v.
Discovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08171 and Todorovski v.
Discovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09125) were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints name Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc.,
David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants. The complaints
generally allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in SEC filings and in certain public statements relating
to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The complaints seek damages and other relief. The Company intends
to vigorously defend these litigations.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation
headquartered in New York City.[BN]
WASTE CONNECTIONS: More Time for Class Cert. Discovery Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNSHINE CHILDREN'S
LEARNING CENTER, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. WASTE CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
0:21-cv-62123-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order extending the deadline to complete class certification
discovery from December 8, 2022, to December 15, 2022, with all
other deadlines remaining unchanged.
The Parties have assiduously pursued discovery and their positions
in this case and have been diligent in trying to comply with the
Court's prior and current deadlines.
At the Parties' request, the Court accordingly entered an amended
scheduling order on July 12, 2022 which in pertinent part reset the
deadline for the Parties to complete class certification discovery
to December 8, 2022.
The Parties have diligently attempted to schedule all necessary
class certification-related depositions to occur prior to this
date. For example, a total of 14 depositions have been set to occur
and/or have already occurred prior to this deadline.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWvJhl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
E-mail: adam@webbllc.com
matt@webbllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric L. Klein, Esq.
Eric L. Klein, Esq.
Megan R. Brillault, Esq.
James B. Slaughter, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
1900 N. St., NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 789-6000
Facsimile: (202) 789-6190
E-mail: eklein@bdlaw.com
mbrillault@bdlaw.com
jslaughter@bdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel L. Felker, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
1 Financial Plaza, Suite 1620
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 768-1600
Facsimile: (954) 337-7636
E-mail: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com
FLLService@bakerdonelson.com
WISCONSIN: Summary Judgment Bid in Heredia v. Parole Comm'n Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIANO HEREDIA, DUJUAN NASH, JOSEPH OROSCO, BARNEY
GUARNERO, BRIAN PHEIL, TERRANCE PRUDE, JUMAR JONES, and DENG YANG,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CHRISTOPHER BLYTHE, Chairperson and Commissioner of
the Wisconsin Parole Commission; JENNIFER KRAMER, Commissioner of
the Wisconsin Parole Commission; DOUGLAS DRANKIEWICZ, Commissioner
of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; KEVIN CARR, Secretary of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections; and ANGELA HANSEN, Director of
the Bureau of Classification and Movement, in their official
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-338-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge
James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and denies the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs represent a class of Wisconsin prisoners serving
long sentences for crimes committed when they were minors. The
central question in the case is how the Constitution limits the
authority of the Wisconsin Parole Commission to grant or deny
parole to those who committed crimes as juveniles.
The Plaintiffs, who committed crimes when they were under the age
of 18, received a sentence of at least 470 months, and are eligible
for release under parole supervision or will be eligible at some
point. Wisconsin abolished parole in 2000 for crimes committed
after Dec. 31, 1999, and in its place enacted a determinate
sentencing scheme that includes a fixed term of imprisonment and a
fixed term of supervised release. The class includes only prisoners
sentenced under the indeterminate system, so all the class members
committed their crimes before 2000.
Since 2010, the commission has released 88 out of 176 prisoners who
met the class definition at the time of release. But no class
member was released at his first parole eligibility date.
The traditional view is that the Constitution places few limits on
a state parole board's discretion. The Plaintiffs say that view is
outdated in light of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). Graham
held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole
sentences for juveniles who committed crimes other than homicide,
because such a sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the
offense.
Building from this basic principle, the Plaintiffs contend that the
commission may not deny them parole for any reason other than their
failure to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, and that the
Defendants must provide them the resources they need to meet that
standard by their first parole eligibility date. They contend
further that they are entitled to a range of procedural protections
in connection with parole hearings, including the counsel, experts,
in-person interviews with the commission chairperson, and advanced
notice of any information that the commission may rely on to deny
parole.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Eighth Amendment, the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. They sue the parole
commissioners, the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections, and the director of the Bureau of Classification and
Movement, contending that the latter two Defendants fail to meet
their constitutional obligations to help them demonstrate maturity
and rehabilitation by their parole eligibility date.
Both sides move for summary judgment.
Judge Peterson opines that the Plaintiffs make a good case that
Wisconsin's parole system uses imprecise standards that are
sometimes applied capriciously, and that offenders are not provided
much help in achieving and demonstrating maturity and
rehabilitation. They show that there are many ways that the parole
system could be improved to make it fairer, more consistent, and
grounded in a better understanding of youthful offenders.
But, Judge Peterson also opines that the Constitution does not
require Wisconsin to have an ideal parole system. He says the
Constitution establishes a minimum, beyond which lies unusual
cruelty. The role of the Court is simply to determine whether
Wisconsin's parole system meets the constitutional minimum as
established by Supreme Court precedent. And the Supreme Court has
made it clear that parole is fundamentally a discretionary
determination within the purview of the executive and legislative
branches of state government.
Nothing in Graham or any other controlling case undermines that
basic understanding, Judge Peterson points out. He holds Graham
prohibits life sentences for juvenile offenders under some
circumstances, but it doesn't empower the courts to scrutinize
every decision that affects a juvenile offender's chances of
parole, nor does it impose exacting procedural requirements on
parole officials. And -- a point critical to the Plaintiffs'
central theme -- nothing in Graham prohibits the commission from
considering the seriousness of the offense and the consequences to
the victims in making parole decisions.
Those convicted of serious crimes as juveniles commonly serve long
sentences in Wisconsin, and parole is not guaranteed. But Judge
Peterson concludes that the Plaintiffs have not shown that, as a
class, they face de facto life sentences without a legitimate
opportunity for parole at some point. They have not shown that the
Defendants refuse to allow them to progress toward parole, or that
they fail to consider their youth when making parole decisions.
Under these circumstances, Judge Peterson holds that the Plaintiffs
are not entitled to class relief under any of their constitutional
theories. Hence, he grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and denies the Plaintiffs' motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ecckrmp from Leagle.com.
YELP INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 19, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 4, 2022, that the court scheduled a
hearing on January 19, 2023 to consider whether to give final
approval of the settlement in a class action alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.
In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Court"), naming as defendants the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Securities Class Action").
The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
and operations on February 9, 2017.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On November 27, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action and, on September 9, 2021, it denied the
defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The case was scheduled for trial to begin on February 7, 2022.
However, on December 3, 2021, the defendants reached a preliminary
agreement with the plaintiff to settle this matter for $22.25
million.
The proposed settlement was subsequently filed with the Court,
which preliminarily approved it on July 25, 2022.
The settlement was then funded by defendants' insurers during the
three months ended September 30, 2022.
After it receives final approval from the Court, the settlement
will resolve all claims asserted against all defendants in the
Securities Class Action without any liability or wrongdoing
attributed to them.
The Court has scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2023, at which it
will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement.
Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
ZENDESK INC: Faces Roe Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, 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 28, 2022, that on May 27, 2022,
Zendesk was named as a defendant in an employment-related putative
class action captioned "Roe, et al. v. Zendesk," No. 22-599855
(S.F. Super. Ct.).
The complaint, filed by one current employee and three former
employees, alleges violations of the California Equal Pay Act and
Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of all women who worked for Zendesk in California at any
time during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Zendesk is a service-first customer relationship management company
based in California.
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Putative Class Action Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies 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
Company faces putative class action suit for violating the Illinois
Rights of Publicity Act. The case is still pending in Illinois.
On April 15, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division)
alleging ZoomInfo's use of Illinois residents' names in
public-facing web pages violates the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. provides a go-to-market platform that
combines intelligence, orchestration, and engagement technologies
to deliver insight-driven automation that helps sales, marketing,
and recruiting professionals succeed. The company is based in
Vancouver, Washington."
*********
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 ***