/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 222 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Must Submit Class Cert. Opposition by Dec. 2 ACER AMERICA: McCall Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices AMENIFY CORPORATION: Butterfield Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ANB BABY NY: Forrest Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AXE AND SLEDGE: Nahra Files Suit in C.D. California BIKE RENTAL CENTRAL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BIMBO BAKERIES: Operative Sched, Discovery Order Entered in Elder BMO TRUST: Law School Gets $3.1-M Settlement in Breach Class Suit BOOMSOURCING: Black Suit Transferred to D. Utah BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Collection Action Bid CARE AT HOME: Order on Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Nqadalo CG-HHC INC: CMP & Trial Order Entered in Williams Class Suit CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL BANK: Noble Files Suit in N.D. New York CHARTER FOODS: Ct. Adopts Judge Wyrick's Class Cert. Recommendation CHERRYBO2MB INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIMINOCARE: Goosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CIRCA 1886: More Time to File Class Cert. Opposition Sought CLOSET FACTORY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CLUBCORP USA: Wolf Suit Removed to S.D. California CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Adopts Proposed Discovery Plan CORPORATION OF MERCER: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York CREDIT BUREAU: Loses Limited Discovery Bid in Kang FCRA-CCRAA Suit CREME SHOP INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CSWS LLC: Barry Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers DOES: Bid for Expedited Discovery in Champion TCPA Suit Partly OK'd DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir. E. ANDRE CONSTRUCTION: Oliveira Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Colon Suit Removed to S.D. New York EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Contristano Suit Removed to S.D. New York ENDICOTT COIL COMPANY: Griffin Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York G. SKILL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hurd Class Action GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Marker Suit Removed to N.D. Texas GENERAL WAX: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations GEORGE BROWN: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered GUADALUPANA BAKERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HALLMARK CARDS: May Face Class Suit for Unsolicited Telemarketing HONEST COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit HP INC: Cepelak, et al., Seek to Certify Classes IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake, et al., Seek to Certify Three Sub-Classes IVAN RAMEN USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JERRY DON HODGES: Terry Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Barbour County Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Blackhawk School Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Falmouth Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Hickman County Says JUUL LABS: Faces Hackensack Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Faces Meridian Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Greater Johnstown Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Northern Highlands Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Berkshire Says JUUL LABS: Richmond Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Mass. JUUL LABS: Silver Lake Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis in Schools, Itawamba Claims JUUL LABS: Voorhees Township Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth KIA AMERICA: Whalen Files Suit in C.D. California KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Initial OK of Settlement KOHL CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations LEARNING EXPRESS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LENOVO INC: Second Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd LIFE SPECTACULAR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit LIMESTONE BANCORP: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York LTF CLUB: Turner's Reimbursement Claim Dismissed With Prejudice MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Green Action Junked MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Watson Action Junked MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum, Camero Seek to Strike Crandall's Testimony MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina MELODY HULETT: Loses Renewed Bid for Judgment in Phillips META PLATFORMS: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Data METV: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Lesorgen Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan NATIONWIDE TAX: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages NECTAR BRAND: Snow Sues Over Fake Limited-Time Sales NEW YORK, NY: Renewed Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Filed NFL: Plaintiff Allowed to File Documents Under Seal NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Denial in Dewalt v. DPS Upheld NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Sues Over 21.31% Stock Price Drop POLY-WOOD LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Giannaros Suit PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 29 RAINBOW CHILD: $151K in Fees and Costs Endorsed in Ramnarine Suit RALPH MILLER: Court OKs Biolabs Class Certification Bid RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Unsafe Levels of Fluorine RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices RP ON-SITE: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Suit SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART: Abrams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Acuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed SMASHBURGER IP: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $5.5-M SUITE NEW YORK: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TACTILE SYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in Mart Class Suit in Minn. TENNESSEE: Chancery Court's Judgment in Oliver v. TDOSHS Affirmed TERRA BEAUTY PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TIMBERLAND BANK: Court Dismisses Rieken Class Suit With Prejudice TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California TURBIE TWIST LP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York U.S. RENAL CARE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Earned and Overtime Wages UNION PACIFIC: Relief From Judgment Nixed; Blankinship Stays Closed UNITED STATES: Garrison Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit US BANCORP: Portnoy Firm Files Lawsuit Over Securities Violations US DOMINION: Cooper Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit VANGUARD MARKETING: Ortiz Sues Over Unlawful Use of Voice Prints WAKEMED HEALTH: Matthiae Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Cert Discovery Completion Due Dec 15 WEBMD LLC: Bid to Dismiss Lebakken's 1st Amended VPPA Suit Denied WESTLAKE ROYAL: Servin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. WHELAN SECURITY: Teems Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit WINS FINANCE: Kamau Shareholder Suit Pending WORKHORSE INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Derivative Actions XTREME MANUFACTURING: Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Initial Approval YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Wins Initial Nod YSA ARM LLC: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Allowed Leave to Amend Class Cert. Bid ZIGNEGO CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Cardenas Class Suit ZORBX INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ********* 3M COMPANY: Must Submit Class Cert. Opposition by Dec. 2 -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to file opposition to class certification. The parties have filed a consent motion for extension of time to submit opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for Class certification. The court grants the consent motion, and extends the deadline for the Defendants to submit their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification through and including December 2, 2022. 3M is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial products and solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TqjOv8 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Defendant 3M Company are: Robert B. Remar, Esq. Monica P. Witte, Esq. Katherine 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 ACER AMERICA: McCall Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Carnelius McCall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate v. Acer America Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01390-JHE (N.D. Ala., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to it's the Spin 1 Series of laptop computers, including models such as the Spin 1 SP111-33-P1XD, under the Acer brand with lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries ("Product"). A laptop user expects its battery to adequately function for the lifespan the laptop, and not suffer rapid degradation and failure. Lithium-ion battery defects include premature failure, high C-rate (electrical current drain rate), swelling and overheating, which are not always attributed to normal degradation. Battery manufacturing defects contribute to reliability and performance issues, including low states of charge and unexpected shutdowns. Structural cell defects from manufacturing can lead to acute failure, chronic degradation, inferior electrochemical performance and overheating. By selling its laptops, Defendant represents that their component parts are adequate for usage and will function reliably for a reasonable period of time. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant. The Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $299, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, sold and represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for if consumers were aware it was prone to these defects. The Plaintiff bought the Product because she expected its components such as its battery, would be adequately manufactured, designed and tested so that it could reliably hold its charge and not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected to an external power source. The Plaintiff relied on the sale of the Product, words, terms coloring, descriptions, layout, placement, packaging, tags, and/or images on the Product, on the labeling, statements, omissions, claims, and instructions, made by Defendant or at its directions, in digital, print and/or social media, which accompanied the Product and separately, through in-store, digital, audio, and print marketing. The battery in Plaintiff's laptop suffered premature failure and degradation after only several months of normal usage, whereby it was incapable of obtaining and maintaining its charge for any reasonable period of time, preventing and limiting her ability to use it. The Plaintiff and consumers paid more for the Product than they would have had they known the batteries were only subjected to electrochemical characterization tests, focusing on macroscopic battery performance, instead of the occurrence of other defects which could and did cause battery failures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product within the statutes of limitations. The Defendant sells laptop computers through its website and via third-party websites and physical stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Frankowski, Esq. THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC 1914 4th Ave N Ste 530 Birmingham AL 35203 Phone: (205) 390-0399 Email: richard@frankowskifirm.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com AMENIFY CORPORATION: Butterfield Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amenify Corporation. The case is styled as Satchel Butterfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amenify Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06639 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Amenify -- https://www.amenify.com/ -- is a real estate technology company that offers professional cleaning, chores, housekeeping, dog walking, food delivery, and lifestyle services for multifamily (apartment) residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ANB BABY NY: Forrest Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anb Baby NY, LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Forrest, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anb Baby NY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06570 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ANB Baby NY LLC -- https://www.anbbaby.com/ -- offers retail of baby strollers, feeding items, car seats, travel systems, diaper bags and gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com AXE AND SLEDGE: Nahra Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Axe and Sledge Supplements Inc. The case is styled as John Nahra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Axe and Sledge Supplements Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-07897-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Axe & Sledge Supplements -- https://axeandsledge.com/ -- is the official brand of IFBB Pro Seth Feroce designed for the Hardest Workers in the Gym.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Chrzan, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com BIKE RENTAL CENTRAL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bike Rental Central Park, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bike Rental Central Park, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06621 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bike Rental Central Park, Inc. -- https://bikerentalcentralpark.com/ -- is a bicycle rental service in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Operative Sched, Discovery Order Entered in Elder ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKI ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00637-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order amending the operative scheduling and discovery order as follows: 1. The Defendant's Motion for Summary December 9, 2022 Judgment is due: 2. The Plaintiff's Response in January 27, 2023 Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due: 3. The Defendant's Reply in Support February 24, 2023 of its Motion for Summary Judgment is due: Any Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment will be set by separate notice. All deadlines relating to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification are continued until after the completion of the Scheduled outlined above, the Court says. Bimbo is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EitaVE at no extra charge.[CC] BMO TRUST: Law School Gets $3.1-M Settlement in Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Exner of The Lawyers Daily reported that The University of Windsor law school's Class Action Clinic has been awarded $3.1 million from the recent settlement of a $100-million class action lawsuit, according to an Oct. 27 news release. The award comes from the settlement in MacDonald et al v. BMO Trust Company et al 2020 ONSC 93, in which the Ontario Superior Court found financial institutions had "breached duties as trustees and fiduciaries by failing to disclose the amount of markup fee on foreign currency conversions in registered accounts." "I am impressed with Windsor Law's long-standing commitment to improving access to justice and with the work of the Class Action Clinic," James MacDonald, one of the lead plaintiffs in this action, said in the law school's statement. "The lawsuit settlement helped thousands of Canadians achieve access to justice for their claim," he added. Windsor Law dean Reem Bahdi called the award to the clinic "an important next step in Windsor Law's rich history of upholding an access to justice mission for Canadians." The school's Class Action Clinic was established in 2019 and received start-up funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario, according to its website. It is "staffed with a team of law students, review counsel, and a faculty director who provide a range of legal services, information, assistance with filing claims in settlement distribution processes, public education, and outreach." "Because we serve class members across Canada, the Clinic provides its services online, by telephone and by video conference, as well as in person for those in the Windsor–Essex community," the website states. The clinic's focus is "to assist members at all stages of class action litigation, including in the claims process," according to the news release. "It has assisted well over 100 class members to recover more than $1 million in complex settlement claims processes to date and has also intervened at the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal on legal issues of widespread importance." Furthermore, the clinic "provides law students with a unique hands-on learning experience as part of their law school education to become ethical, justice-seeking lawyers through teaching, research, advocacy, and service," the clinic's founder and director professor Jasminka Kalajdzic said in the statement. Dean Bahdi described the class action clinic as the first clinic of its kind in North America. "A class action lawsuit facilitates access to justice where it would otherwise not be attainable, and the clinic is deeply honored to have been chosen to receive this significant award," Kalajdzic noted in the statement. "This re-affirms the important work of the Clinic and will permit it to accelerate its focus on helping Canadians across the country in their pursuit of justice through their involvement in current and future class action lawsuits." "On behalf of the class members of the lawsuit, we look forward to the impact Professor Kalajdzic and her team will achieve with this award," MacDonald said. If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for The Lawyer's Daily on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Heidi Exner at Heidi.Exner@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5825. [GN] BOOMSOURCING: Black Suit Transferred to D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Robin Black, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Boomsourcing, BoomSourcing BPO, Respondents, Case No. 1:21-cv-3745 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Oct. 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-00696-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion to Compel. Boomsourcing -- https://boomsourcing.com/ -- is a call center in Lehi, Utah, the costumers turn key contact center solution.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Steven A. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 9980 S 300 W #200 SANDY, UT 84070 Phone: (801) 676-6447 Email: stevenchristen@gmail.com BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Collection Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for collective action and to authorize notice to similarly situated employees. The Court finds Plaintiff's pleadings and the declarations provided demonstrate that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing similarity amongst all employees who worked for Defendant and were paid based on billable hours during the relevant three-year period. The Plaintiffs are similarly situated when they suffer from a single, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)-violating policy, and when proof of that policy or of conduct in conformity with that policy proves a violation as to all the plaintiffs." In this case, there appear to be notable variances between and within departments in: timekeeping practices and customs; job titles; job duties; payment methods; supervisors; overtime pay; and start times, end times, and lunch breaks. Bosworth provides quality air conditioning, heating, air quality, plumbing and electrical services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EcAamR at no extra charge.[CC] CARE AT HOME: Order on Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Nqadalo ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nqadolo, et al., v. Care at Home, LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order on pretrial deadlines as follows: -- Pre-class certification discovery January 31, 2023 shall be completed by -- The Plaintiffs shall move for April 30, 2023 conditional certification of their collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act by: -- The Plaintiffs shall move for May 31, 2023 class certification of their Connecticut Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by: Additional discovery, including expert discovery on damages, shall commence after a decision by the Court on the motions for class certification. Within two weeks of the Court's decision on the motions for class certification, the parties shall submit an amended Rule 26(f) Report setting forth a schedule for Phase II discovery and dispositive motions, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] CG-HHC INC: CMP & Trial Order Entered in Williams Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CG-HHC, INC. d/b/a Caregiver, A Step Up, Case No. 5:22-cv-01003-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an case management plan and trial order as follows: 1. Deadline to Add Parties or Amend April 21, 2023 Pleadings: 2. Deadline for Completing Non-Expert January 16, 2024 Discovery: 3. Deadline for Party(ies) with Oct. 16, 2023 Burden of Proof to Identify Experts(s) and Provide Reports in Compliance with Civil Rule 26(a)(2): 4. Deadline to Identify Rebuttal Nov. 15, 2023 Experts(s) and Provide Reports in Compliance with Civil Rule 26(a)(2): 5. Deadline for Completing Expert Dec. 18, 2023 Discovery: 6. Deadline for Filing Dispositive Feb. 15, 2024 Motions and Decertification Motions: 7. Deadline for Filing March 18, 2024 Opposition(s) to above Motions: CG-HHC is a medical practice company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3heh8mX at no extra charge.[CC] CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL BANK: Noble Files Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Champlain National Bank. The case is styled as Regionald Noble, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Champlain National Bank, Case No. 8:22-cv-01130-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking. Champlain National Bank -- https://www.champlainbank.com/ -- operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other services for the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street-Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com CHARTER FOODS: Ct. Adopts Judge Wyrick's Class Cert. Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IM DAVIS, et al., v. CHARTER FOODS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-159 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Charles E. Atchley, JR. entered an order accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Wyrick's recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Plaintiffs' motion for class action certification. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as follows: Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216, the case is certified as a collective action as to the following putative class: "All individuals who are or have been employed by the Defendants as an Assistant General Manager at any time from July 21, 2017, through January 1, 2020, who worked more than 40 hours during one or more workweeks and who are not participating in Gallagher v. Charter Foods, Inc., 2021 WL 2581153 (W.D. Pa. June 23, 2021) as a named or opt-in plaintiff." Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies a class consisting of: "All individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants as an Assistant General Manager in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from three years prior to the filing date of the Complaint [July 21, 2020] up until today, October 26, 2022, who have worked more than forty (40) hours per week without being paid at overtime rates." On March 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Wyrick filed her Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class be granted with respect to both conditional collective certification under the FLSA and Rule 23 class certification, as specified in the Report. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DNCcs7 at no extra charge.[CC] CHERRYBO2MB INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherrybo2mb, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cherrybo2mb, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09321-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cherry Bo2mb -- https://www.cherrybo2mb.com/ -- is a distributor of wellness supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CIMINOCARE: Goosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ciminocare. The case is styled as Larry Norell Goosby, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ciminocare, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00329033-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 31, 2022). The case type is stated "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." CiminoCare -- https://www.ciminocare.com/ -- owns, manages, and advises Senior Housing communities across much of Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com CIRCA 1886: More Time to File Class Cert. Opposition Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA LITTLEFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CIRCA 1886, LLC d/b/a CIRCA 1886; 1886, LLC; MICHELLE WOODHULL, individually; & MARK SEVERS, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02716-BHH (D.S.C.), the Parties move the Court for an extending the time for Defendants to file a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification (FLSA) and to Authorize Notice to Putative Class Members. -- The current deadline for Defendants to respond to the Motion for Conditional Class Certification is October 26, 2022. -- This deadline has been previously extended twice, but the parties seek a third extension as they continue to make progress towards an early resolution of this case. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request an additional twenty-one (21) days for the Defendants to respond to the Motion for Conditional Class Certification, such that the deadline shall be November 16, 2022. Granting this extension would not affect any other deadlines in this case. Circa 1886 is one of downtown Charleston's finest restaurant serving Southern Cuisine. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zNG8YH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, PA 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail:bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by Greg Horton, Esq. Harriet Condon Ward, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP P.O. Box 999, 5 Exchange Street, 29401-2530 Charleston, SC 29402-0999 Telephone (843) 722-3400 E-mail: Greg.Horton@wbd-us.com Harriet.Ward@wbd-us.com CLOSET FACTORY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Closet Factory, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Closet Factory, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06626 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Closet Factory, Inc. -- https://www.closetfactory.com/ -- designs furniture. The Company offers closet, storage cabinets, work benches, and bookshelves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CLUBCORP USA: Wolf Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lea Wolf, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ClubCorp USA, Inc., ClubCorp Golf of California LLC doing business as: Morgan Run Resort & Club, Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00038078-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01688-MMA-MDD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights Other Contract. ClubCorp -- http://www.invitedclubs.com/-- is a privately held American corporation based in Dallas and is the largest owner and operator of private golf and country clubs in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Nadir Osman Ahmed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NADIR O. AHMED 421 Broadway Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (216) 272-8250 Email: nadiroahmed@gmail.com - and - Robert Radulescu, Esq. 1818 6th Avenue, Unit #203 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (206) 799-6472 Email: romanrobert@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison M. Brown, Esq. Natalie Alameddine, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 239-3400 Fax: (424) 239-3434 Email: ATagvoryan@blankrome.com hbrown@blankrome.com natalie.alameddine@blankrome.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Adopts Proposed Discovery Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HYSTAD CEYNAR MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00139-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Clare R. Hochhalter, entered an order adopting the parties' proposed scheduling/discovery plan and setting the following deadlines: -- Motion Deadline for Class Sept. 1, 2023 Certification: -- Discovery Deadline: June 3, 2024 -- Discovery Motions Deadline: June 3, 2024 -- Plaintiff Expert Witness March 1, 2024 Reports Deadline: -- Defendant Expert Witness April 1, 2024 Reports Deadline: -- Rebuttal Expert Witness May 1, 2024 Reports Deadline: -- Discovery Depositions of June 3, 2024 Expert Witness Deadline: -- Motions to Join Additional Dec. 1, 2023 Parties Deadline: -- Motions to Amend Pleadings: Dec. 1, 2023 -- Nondispositive Motions April 1, 2024 Deadline: -- Dispositive Motions June 3, 2024 Deadline: Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hiDTGx at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6253 E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com george@bartonburrows.omc seth@bartonburrows.com - and - Josh A. Swanson, Esq. Robert B. Stock, Esq. VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Ave. Fargo, ND 58102 Telephone: (701) 237-6983 E-mail: jswanson@volgellaw.com rstock@vogellaw.com The Attorneys for Continental Resources, Inc. are: Ronald H. McLean, Esq. Kasey D. McNary, Esq. SERKLAND LAW FIRM 10 Roberts Street North P.O. Box 6017 Fargo, ND 58108-6017 Telephone: (701) 232-8957 E-mail: rmclean@serklandlaw.com kmcnary@serklandlaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. King, Esq. Jamie Lavergne Bryan, Esq. K&L GATES LLP Bank of America Tower 301 Commerce, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5270 Facsimile: (817) 347-5299 E-mail: Jeffrey.C.King@klgates.com Jamie.Bryan@klgates.com CORPORATION OF MERCER: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Corporation Of Mercer University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Corporation Of Mercer University, Case No. 1:22-cv-00820 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mercer University -- https://www.mercer.edu/ -- is a private research university with its main campus in Macon, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CREDIT BUREAU: Loses Limited Discovery Bid in Kang FCRA-CCRAA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SUN GON KANG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Defendant's motion for limited discovery from absent class members. Credit Bureau Connection ("CBC") sells credit reports that help automobile dealers manage the regulatory compliance obligations that accompany every consumer car purchase. One of the obligations derives from a Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") regulation that prohibits dealers from doing business with anyone designated as a "Specially Designated National" or "SDN" on OFAC's SDN list. Individuals on the SDN list consist of persons and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries, as well as persons and entities that are not country-specific, such as terrorists and drug traffickers. SDNs are prohibited from transacting business in the United States for national security reasons. CBC's credit reports indicate whether a consumer is an "OFAC Hit," that is, someone with whom the automobile dealer might not want to do business because of that person's match to the SDN list. The Plaintiff was a consumer whose name inaccurately came up as an OFAC Hit on a credit report sold by CBC to Norm Reeves Honda. The OFAC check matched him with a North Korean SDN named Song Nam Kang, and Norm Reeves Hondo denied him credit on that basis. The Plaintiff later requested and received a copy of the credit report, and learned that CBC's OFAC check incorrectly matched him with an SDN. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated consumers, pleading causes of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), Cal. Civil Code Section 1785.1 et seq. Specifically, on behalf of a putative class, the Plaintiff alleges that CBC failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer information included in its OFAC Check documents, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and Cal. Civil Code Section 1785.14(b); and failed to disclose upon request all information in consumer files, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a) and Cal. Civil Code Sections 1785.10 and 1785.15. On behalf of only himself, the Plaintiff alleges that CBC failed to reinvestigate the disputed OFAC-related information that it had prepared and sold to the dealership, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i. On July 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, which was granted on March 4, 2022. The Court certified the following classes: a. For the Plaintiff's FCRA claims for statutory damages, a class defined as All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a third party from Oct. 2, 2013 to March 4, 2022 and (3) included a U.S. address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual. b. For the Plaintiff's CCRAA claims for injunctive relief, a class defined as "All individuals about whom the Defendant prepared a report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to March 4, 2022; and (3) included a U.S. address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual." The Court also appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative, and his counsel as the co-class counsel. On Oct. 14, 2022, CBC filed a motion seeking permission to serve five interrogatories on approximately 1,194 absent class members. The parties filed their Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement directed to the Motion, as required by the Court's Local Rule 251, on Oct. 26, 2022. Judge Oberto has reviewed the parties' papers and all supporting material and finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. The hearing set for Nov. 9, 2022, is therefore vacated. According to the Arredondo v. Delano Farms Co., No. 1:09-CV-01247 MJS, 2014 WL 5106401, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) court, discovery from absent class members may be permitted when "[1] reasonably necessary, [2] not conducted for an improper purpose, and [3] not unduly burdensome in the context of the case and its issues." Applying these Arredondo factors, Judge Oberto finds that CBC has not carried its burden of justifying the absent class member discovery it seeks. With respect to the first factor, CBC has failed to show that the proposed discovery is reasonably necessary at this stage of the proceedings. It appears that deferring fact gathering regarding CBC's individualized statute of limitations questions and damages issues until later in the case is more appropriate than permitting CBC to propound interrogatories to all approximately 1,194 absent class members at this time. With regard to the second factor, Judge Oberto finds that notwithstanding CBC's stated purpose of using the discovery responses to develop its defenses and to rebut the Plaintiff's request for damages, there is a strong likelihood that the "practical effect of the discovery would be to reduce the size of the class." CBC does not indicate its position regarding the legal consequences for class members who do not provide a response. Finally, with respect to the third factor, CBC has failed to demonstrate that the discovery sought would not be unduly burdensome. She is also unpersuaded that responding to the proposed interrogatories would not require the assistance of counsel, thereby increasing the burden on the recipients. For the reasons she stated, Judge Oberto denies the Defendant's Motion and vacates the hearing set for Nov. 9, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yfhsn94 from Leagle.com. CREME SHOP INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Creme Shop, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Creme Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09335 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Creme Shop -- https://www.thecremeshop.com/ -- began researching and developing beauty products in a humble office tucked away in Downtown, Los Angeles, California since 1988.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CSWS LLC: Barry Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------- RENEE BARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSWS, LLC, and DEBORAH DIAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05872 (N.D. Ill., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer from around July of 2019 until April of 2022. CSWS, LLC, doing business as Ocean's Gentlemen's Club, is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment club, located at 5555 West 70th Place, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DOES: Bid for Expedited Discovery in Champion TCPA Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA CHAMPION, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOES, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-2697 (D.D.C.), Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. Plaintiffs Joshua Champion, Susan Scharf, Robert Shane, and Anthony Verias allege that the Doe Defendants, who are telephone spammers, violated their rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiffs bring their Class Action Complaint for themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated people nationwide who have received spam calls and texts from the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action pursuant to this private right of action alleging violations of the TCPA and a Florida state analogue, Fla. Stat. Section 501.059. They allege they have received thousands of violative text messages and calls. They indicate that the majority of telephone spam that they have received from the Doe Defendants involves multiple parties. The Plaintiffs explain that the various parties at work in a spam telephone campaign include a caller, lead generator, seller, and sometimes a marketing broker/affiliate network. The Defendants Does are currently unknown individuals and entities who initiated calls and text messages to the Plaintiffs and the class members, or who are otherwise liable for these calls and text messages through their roles as one of the aforementioned parties. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint against the Doe Defendants on Sept. 7, 2022. They allege that the Doe Defendants have concealed their identities and can only be identified via discovery. On Sept. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the pending Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery to uncover the identities of the Doe Defendants by subpoenaing factual information relevant to their identities from third parties. The Plaintiffs name numerous phone carriers, domain registrars and domain-related parties, sellers, and brokers who they believe to have "discoverable information that will lead to the identification of the Doe Defendants," and indicated that others may also have such information. They also indicate that "the responses to their subpoenas may reveal additional parties who have information which would assist them in identifying the Defendants, such as UPS Stores, landlords, email providers, and others." Judge Kollar-Kotelly is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery is both relevant and proportional, when limited. Considering the Doe Defendants' concealment of their identities and the Plaintiffs' stated expertise, as demonstrated through success in numerous cases uncovering defendants' identities, she finds that the Plaintiffs' requested discovery is necessary and likely to uncover the identities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery also satisfies the relevancy requirement. Judge Kollar-Kotelly opines there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a "threshold showing" of specific personal jurisdiction. It is not necessary to determine whether the Plaintiffs will actually succeed in establishing personal jurisdiction over the Doe Defendants because the mere possibility that an unnamed defendant may defeat a complaint at a later stage is not a legitimate basis to deny a Rule 26(d)(1) motion that otherwise satisfies Rule 26's discovery standards. She finds that the Plaintiffs have a "realistic chance" of identifying a Defendant over which the Court could exercise personal jurisdiction. Having established the relevance of the Plaintiffs' discovery request, Judge Kollar-Kotelly turns to proportionality. She finds that (i) given the TCPA's purpose and the scope of the Plaintiffs' allegations, the importance of the issue is considerable; (ii) there are substantial amount in controversy and number of spam communications currently alleged by the Plaintiffs; and (iii) the third parties retain access over the identities of the Doe Defendants that the Plaintiffs have been unable to gather independently. However, Judge Kollar-Kotelly limits the Plaintiffs' discovery request related to (1) phone carriers, 2) domain registrars and domain-related parties, and (3) sellers and brokers to only those entities listed by name in his Motion. Until the Doe Defendants are identified and named as parties to this litigation or until other information comes to light, she denies the Plaintiffs' request to subpoena "additional parties." Judge Kollar-Kotelly concludes that the Plaintiffs' expedited discovery request is both relevant to their claims and, for some of the requested subpoenas, proportional to the needs of the case. For the foregoing reasons, she grants in part and denies in part their Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. Judge Kollar-Kotelly grants the Plaintiffs' motion with respect to the phone carriers, domain registrars and domain-related parties, and sellers and brokers that they have listed by name in their Motion. She denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion with respect to additional phone carriers, domain registrars and domain-related parties, and sellers and brokers that are not named in the Motion, as well as any "additional parties" not named in the Motion. An Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/26h72mme from Leagle.com. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN GILE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Brian Gile, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dolgen California, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Brian Gile and Randolph Gallegos initially filed this wage and hour case in California state court. The Defendant removed it to federal court in September 2020. Following a protracted pleadings stage, Plaintiffs filed their Seventh Amended Complaint (7AC), asserting nine California law claims. On November 15, 2021, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Gallegos's claims. The Court also denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning Gile's claims on May 6, 2022. On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. The Court found the Plaintiffs as inadequate and atypical class representative. The appellate case is captioned Brian Gile, et al. v. Dolgen California, LLC, Case No. 22-55987, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Randolph Gallegos and Brian Gile Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 31, 2022; -- Appellants Randolph Gallegos and Brian Gile opening brief is due on February 1, 2023; -- Appellee Dolgen California, LLC answering brief is due on March 3, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN GILE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mickel Montalban Arias, Esq. Craig Shunji Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive, W. Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 - and - Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Defendant-Appellee DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, is represented by: Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1800 Century Park, E. 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 956-3419 - and - Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 E. Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4716 E. ANDRE CONSTRUCTION: Oliveira Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E. Andre Construction Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adilson De Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. E. Andre Construction Services Inc. also known as: E. Andre Construction Services LLC; Meky Payroll Services; Edward Andre, Elana Matos, individually, Case No. 3:22-cv-06330-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. E. Andre Construction -- https://eandreconstruction.com/ -- is one of central New Jersey's leading construction companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Colon Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Josh Colon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC doing business as: Empress Emergency Medical Services, Case No. 815075/2022E was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Bronx, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-09322-KMK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Empress EMS -- https://empressems.com/ -- has been providing ambulance services in the metro NYC area for over 37 years.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER (DENVER) 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 45202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com - and - Robyn Mara Feldstein, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Phone: (212) 589-4278 Email: rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Contristano Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Salvatore J. Contristano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC doing business as: Empress Emergency Medical Services, Case No. 65746/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Westchester, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-09318-KMK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Empress EMS -- https://empressems.com/ -- has been providing ambulance services in the metro NYC area for over 37 years.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER (DENVER) 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 45202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com - and - Robyn Mara Feldstein, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Phone: (212) 589-4278 Email: rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com ENDICOTT COIL COMPANY: Griffin Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Endicott Coil Company, Inc. The case is styled as Deseria R. Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endicott Coil Company, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01128-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Endicott Coil -- https://www.endicottcoil.com/ -- manufactures custom transformers and inductors, custom-wound electric coil, encapsulating coil, and value-added services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nelson E. Canter, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN, STERN LAW FIRM 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 448-1100 Email: ncanter@canterlawfirm.com G. SKILL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hurd Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tristan Hurd v. G. Skill International Enterprise Co., LTD. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order: 1. granting the parties' stipulation to withdraw without prejudice Plaintiff's first motion for class certification; and 2. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend his complaint to include additional defendants. The Court sets the following deadlines regarding Plaintiff’s anticipated renewed motion for class certification as follows. The Court will schedule a case management conference to set all remaining deadlines after ruling on that motion. -- Deadline to Complete Class May 5, 2023 Certification Discovery: -- Deadline to File Motion for June 2, 2023 Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Opposition June 30, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Reply to July 14, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: -- Class Certification Hearing: Aug. 11, 2023 The parties are reminded that all merits discovery is stayed until further order of the Court, and the only discovery permitted is discovery related to class certification. In their stipulation, the parties indicated that Plaintiff intends to file a renewed motion for class certification once those additional defendants have had the opportunity to conduct class certification discovery of their own. [Dkt. 36]. Plaintiff’s deadline to file his amended complaint is November 4, 2022. G. Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company that produces a variety of high-end PC products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hqQpno at no extra charge.[CC] GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICARDO AMEZCUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC.; GAMINO & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20080628, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06501 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. Gardner Trucking, Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation services, with its principal place of business in Iowa. Gamino & Associates, Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation services, with its principal place of business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kristen J. Nesbit, Esq. Shaun J. Voigt, Esq. Lalonnie V. Gray, Esq. Ariella M. Kupetz, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com svoigt@fisherphillips.com lgray@fisherphillips.com akupetz@fisherphillips.com GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Marker Suit Removed to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Victoria Marker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gateway Diagnostic Imaging, LLC, Case No. 352-337300-22 was removed from the 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Oct. 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00981-P to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury for Federal Trade Commission Act. Gateway Diagnostic Imaging -- https://www.gatewaydiagnostic.com/ -- is a diagnostic center that offers MRI, CT scan, ultrasound, and X-Ray imaging services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L Thompson, Esq. Ryan Hugh Anderson, Esq. THOMPSON LAW LLP 3300 Oak Lawn Ave., 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 755-7777 Fax: (214) 716-0116 Email: rlthompson@triallawyers.com randerson@triallawyers.com - and - Jason Johnston, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com The Defendant is represented by: Tamara D Baggett, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER 2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-1208 Fax: (214) 210-1201 Email: tbaggett@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D Collignon, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com GENERAL WAX: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Tovar Garcia, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. GENERAL WAX CO., INC.; GENERAL WAX & CANDLE CO., INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34731 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought seeking civil penalties associated with the Defendants' violation of the Labor Code by failure to pay proper compensations. The Defendants failed to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; failed to timely produce requested employment records; failed to timely pay earned wages during employment; failed to provide accurate wage statements; failed to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position from March 2021 until his termination on April 8, 2022. GENERAL WAX CO., INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Melissa Huether, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com wht3@lelawfirm.com GEORGE BROWN: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against George Brown Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. George Brown Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00592 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. George Brown Associates -- https://georgebrowncollect.com/ -- offers a variety of services to maintain and monitor their receivables; medical, retail, and commercial.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 371-4333 Fax: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BARTHOLOMEW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership; GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and GOODMAN GLOBAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00027-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- The Court finds that bifurcation is necessary in order to best determine if the elements of class certification are met.The Court hereby bifurcates the discovery process. -- All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action and shall be completed within 240 days. -- The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later class certification than 180 days after the close of certification discovery. The parties are responsible for ensuring that all motions are filed to allow for proper notice of the hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. -- Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T8Xmqo at no extra charge.[CC] GUADALUPANA BAKERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guadalupana Bakery Corp., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guadalupana Bakery Corp., 308 Ellery LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06558 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guadalupana Bakery Corp. is a bakery located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Bell, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 280-3008 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: jb@belllg.com HALLMARK CARDS: May Face Class Suit for Unsolicited Telemarketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter shared through Class Action.org 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 "stop" 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. 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 complaint reads. The filing alleges that Hallmark intentionally programmed its telephone dialing system to continue sending spam messages 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] HONEST COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order: -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: August 18, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial): August 1, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): September 2, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 18, 2023 -- Deadline to File a Motion for February 13, 2023 Class Certification: -- Deadline to File an Opposition March 6, 2023 to the Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File a Reply in March 27, 2023 Support of the Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing Date on Motion for April 17, 2023 Class Certification: The Court will set additional dates, including pretrial and trial dates, after a ruling on class certification is issued. To the extent applicable, the Court orders the parties to comply with the Order Re: Jury/Court Trial available on the Court’s website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-mark-c-scarsi. Honest Company is an honestly safe baby and beauty store that brings innovative formulas and thoughtful designs to beauty and baby products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NPvkPr at no extra charge.[CC] HP INC: Cepelak, et al., Seek to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CEPELAK, JUDY CHAMBERS, JIM DICKINSON and MARCIA NUPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02450-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Classes: -- California Print-To-Stop Class "All persons who purchased the following HP printers in California at any time beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action until the present (California Class Period): HP OfficeJet 6100, 8600, 8702, 8100, 8210, 8216, 8600 Plus, 8610, 8615, 8620, 8625, 8630, 8710, 8715, 8717, 8720, 8725, 8730, 8740, 9010, 9015, 9015e, 9016, 9018, 9019, 9020, 9025, and 9025e (the "Print-To-Stop Printers"). -- California Underprinting Class "All persons who purchased any HP printer in California at any time during the California Class Period (together with the California Print-To-Stop Class;" -- New York Print-To-Stop Class "All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop Printers in New York at any time beginning six years prior to the filing of this action until the present;" -- New York Underprinting Class "All persons who purchased any of the Printers in New York at any time during the New York Class Period;" -- Arkansas Print-To-Stop Class "All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop Printers in Arkansas at any time beginning five years prior to the filing of this action until the present;" -- Arkansas Underprinting Class "All persons who purchased any of the Printers in Arkansas at any time during the Arkansas Class Period;” -- Arizona Print-To-Stop Class "All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop Printers in Arizona at any time beginning three years prior to the filing of this action until the present;" -- Arizona Underprinting Class "All persons who purchased any of the Printers in Arizona at any time during the Arizona Class Period." The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an Order designating them as Class Representatives and appointing their counsel, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Walsh P.L.L.C as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs also request the Court order the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within fifteen days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified Classes. HP Inc. provides computing, imaging and printing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home. T A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FR5o4a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH P.L.L.C. 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake, et al., Seek to Certify Three Sub-Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER, individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, MIKE TODD, and LYCIA WHITE as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an Order that the action may proceed as a class action. Specifically, the Plaintiffs propose three sub-classes with the following definitions: 1. Usury Class consists of: (a) all persons who paid interest and/or loan charges at any point from July 22, 2016, to (i) Mary M. Wester, individually, (ii) Mary M. Wester, as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Irrevocable Trust, or (iii) IRA Innovations, LLC, or against whom the Class Defendants obtained a judgment based upon a loan which provided for the payment of interest and/or loan charges; (b) where the loan is/was governed by Tennessee law; and (c) which interest rate and/or loan charges exceeded the maximum legal rate allowed under Tennessee law. 2. Breach of Contract Class consists of: (a) all persons who paid interest and/or loan charges at any point from July 22, 2013, to one or more of the Class Defendants, and (b) pursuant to a loan governed by Tennessee law that contained a provision requiring the repayment to maker of any unlawfully excessive interest and/or loan charges. 3. RICO Class consists of: (a) all persons who qualify under the "Usury Class," and (b) who at any point from July 22, 2015, paid interest and/or loan charges at twice the maximum legal statutory rate in the State of Tennessee. IRA Innovations is a provider of record keeping and administration services for self-directed retirement accounts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t8Q4bt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory H. Oakley, Esq. J. Brad Scarbrough, Esq. Brandon Carnes, Esq. BUILDLAW, PLC 4300 Sidco Drive, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37204 Telephone: (615) 369-9996 E-mail:greg@build.law brad@build.law brandon@build.law The attorneys for IRA Innovations and Mike Todd are: Richard N. Bien, Esq. LATHROP GPM, LLP 2345 Grand Blvd, Sutie 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108 E-mail: Richard.bien@lathropgpm.com - and - John R. Tarpley, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 PO Box 198615 Nashville, TN 37219 E-mail: jtarpley@lewisthomason.com The Attorneys for Patrick Moss: Robert M. Burns, Esq. HOWELL & FISHER, PLLC 3310 West End Avenue, Suite 550 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: rburns@howell-fisher.com The Attorneys for Mary M. Wester, individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust are: Phillip G. Young, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BURTON PLLC 1801 West End Avenue, Suite 1550 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: phillip@thompsonburton.com IVAN RAMEN USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivan Ramen USA, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ivan Ramen USA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06622 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ivan Ramen USA -- https://www.ivanramen.com/ -- is a ramen restaurant offering creative homemade noodle soups & izakaya-style small plates served in a colorful space with a patio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com JERRY DON HODGES: Terry Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Terry, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. JERRY DON HODGES, an individual, Case No. 6:22-cv-01668-AA (D. Ore., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Oregon Wage and Hour Laws as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages. The Defendant does not track the Plaintiff's or other Delivery Drivers' actual expenses, nor does the Defendant keep records of all of those expenses. The Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses. The Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at the IRS standard business mileage rate. The Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at a reasonable approximation of Delivery Drivers' expenses. The Defendant reimburses the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at a flat rate of $1.00 per delivery or $1.50 per delivery if the Plaintiff took two orders out for delivery at the same time. As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Delivery Drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA and the Oregon statutes. The Defendant knew or should have known that it was not paying the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers sufficient minimum wages. The Defendant has willfully failed to pay a minimum wage to the Plaintiff and similarly situated Delivery Drivers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from August of 2021 until May of 2022. The Defendant owns and operates multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley A. Marton, OSB No. 171584 Rebecca Cambreleng, OSB No. 133209 CRISPIN HANNON MARTON CAMBRELENG LLC 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97221 Phone: 503-293-5770 Fax: 503-293-5766 Email: ashley@employmentlaw-nw.com rebecca@employmentlaw-nw.com - and - Lydia H. Hamlet (pro hac vice forthcoming) SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Barbour County Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BARBOUR COUNTY SCHOOLS, BARBOUR COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06493 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Barbour County Schools, Barbour County, State of West Virginia is a school district with offices located at 45 School Street, Philippi, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Blackhawk School Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLACKHAWK SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01493-MRH (W.D. Pa., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Blackhawk School District is a public school district with administrative offices located at 500 Blackhawk Road, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. King, III, Esq. Thomas E. Breth, Esq. Jordan P. Shuber, Esq. Michael D. Shakley, Esq. DILLON MCCANDLESS KING COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP 128 West Cunningham Street Butler, PA 16001 Telephone: (724) 283-2200 Facsimile: (724) 283-2298 E-mail: tking@dmkcg.com tbreth@dmkcg.com jshuber@dmkcg.com mshakley@dmkcg.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Falmouth Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FALMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06534 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Falmouth Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Falmouth Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 340 Teaticket Hwy. in East Falmouth, Massachusetts. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Hickman County Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HICKMAN COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06502 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Hickman County Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Hickman County Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 115 Murphree Ave. in Centerville, Tennessee. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Hackensack Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic ---------------------------------------------------------------- HACKENSACK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06547 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Hackensack Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Hackensack Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 191 Second Street in Hackensack, New Jersey. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Meridian Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------ MERIDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06505 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Meridian Public School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Meridian Public School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1019 25th Ave. in Meridian, Mississippi. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Greater Johnstown Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREATER JOHNSTOWN CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00195-SLH (W.D. Pa., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center is a public school district with administrative offices located at 445 Schoolhouse Road, Johnstown, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. King, III, Esq. Thomas E. Breth, Esq. Ronald N. Repak, Esq. Jordan P. Shuber, Esq. DILLON MCCANDLESS KING COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP 128 West Cunningham Street Butler, PA 16001 Telephone: (724) 283-2200 Facsimile: (724) 283-2298 E-mail: tking@dmkcg.com tbreth@dmkcg.com rrepak@dmkcg.com jshuber@dmkcg.com JUUL LABS: Northern Highlands Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06518 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Northern Highlands Regional High School case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Northern Highlands Regional High School is a high school with its offices located at Hillside Avenue in Allendale, New Jersey. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Berkshire Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BERKSHIRE HILLS REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06527-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Berkshire Hills Regional School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Berkshire Hills Regional School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 50 Main Street in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Richmond Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHMOND CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06529-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Richmond Consolidated School case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Richmond Consolidated School is a unified school district with its offices located at 1831 State Road in Richmond, Massachusetts. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Silver Lake Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction -------------------------------------------------------------- SILVER LAKE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06543 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Silver Lake Regional School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Silver Lake Regional School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 250 Pembroke Street in Kingston, Massachusetts. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis in Schools, Itawamba Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06521 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Itawamba County School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Itawamba County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 605 S. Cummings St. in Fulton, Mississippi. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Voorhees Township Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------- VOORHEES TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06517 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Voorhees Township Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Voorhees Township Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 329 RT. 73. in Voorhees, New Jersey. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KIA AMERICA: Whalen Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mary Jane Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai America Technical Center, Incorporated, Case No. 8:22-cv-01987-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: kruf@glancylaw.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01730-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order denying preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement without prejudice. The parties request approval of the following class of an estimated 5,500 individuals (the "Settlement Class" or "Settlement Class Members"): "all current and former truck drivers employed by defendant Knight Transportation, Inc., who advised 6 defendant that they resided in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more entirely within the State of California for defendant during the 'Class Period' from September 30, 2012 through preliminary approval" of the settlement." The Plaintiff has defined "PAGA Claim Members" as "any and all Class Members, who worked Defendant at any time from September 27, 2015 up to preliminary approval" of the settlement. For settlement purposes, the parties have defined the "Class Period" as the time period from "September 30, 2012 through preliminary approval" of the settlement. By contrast, the relevant period for the PAGA claims is September 27, 2015, through preliminary approval. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is warranted. While the Court is mindful of the strong judicial policy favoring settlements, this settlement cannot be approved without additional information and amendment. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the motion to address the identified issues and concerns. Knight is a full truckload carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fFHpKo at no extra charge.[CC] KOHL CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Globe News Wire website published that The Portnoy Law Firm advises Kohl's Corporation ("Kohl's" or the "Company") (NYSE: KSS) investors that a class action filed on behalf of investors. Kohl's investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone at 844-767-8529 or by email: at lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here: https://portnoylaw.com/kohls-corporation/ to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the Company’s stated goals; (ii) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl's had deficient disclosure controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, the Company's Board was able to and did withhold material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to the Company's annual meeting; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl's financial condition and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 19, 2022, Kohl's issued a press release announcing the Company's fiscal Q1 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11 (missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely edged expectations, and the Company's decision to cut its full-year earnings forecast. These results were at odds with the Defendants' representations regarding the successful execution of the Company's Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line growth and position the Company for long-term success. Further, the press release quoted Kohl's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Michelle Gass, who stated, in the relevant part, "the year has started out below our expectations. Following a strong start to the quarter with positive low-single digits' comps through late March, sales considerably weakened in April as we encountered macro headwinds related to lapping last year's stimulus and an inflationary consumer environment." Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC ("Macellum"), "a long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of Kohl's", issued a statement addressing "this quarter's extremely disappointing results," which Macellum attributed to a "flawed strategic plan and an inability to execute." Macellum also stated that "the current Board appears to have withheld material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to this year's pivotal annual meeting," which "suggests to us a clear breach of fiduciary duty." On this news, Kohl's stock price fell $5.84 per share, or 12.97%, to close at $39.20 per share on May 20, 2022. Investors can visit Portnoy's website to review more information and submit their transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com Attorney Advertising [GN] LEARNING EXPRESS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Learning Express, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Learning Express, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06623-EK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Learning Express -- https://learningexpress.com/ -- is the largest franchiser of specialty toy stores in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LENOVO INC: Second Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting second stipulation to extend class certification deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file May 8, 2023 motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to produce June 26, 2023 experts for deposition shall be: -- The Defendant's deadline to file Aug. 21, 2023 opposition to motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be: -- The Defendant's deadline to produce Oct. 2, 2023 experts for deposition shall be: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Oct. 30, 2023 reply re motion for class certification shall be: -- The hearing on the motion for class Dec. 1, 2023 certification shall be on: Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G01Xbd at no extra charge.[CC] LIFE SPECTACULAR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rafael Cordero, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Life Spectacular, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05708-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be Feb. 13,2023 completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production Nov. 28, 2022 of documents shall be served by: -- Interrogatories shall be served by: Nov. 28, 2022 -- All expert discovery, including April 10, 2023 expert depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- Plaintiff's expert disclosures March 16, 2023 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be made on or before: The Plaintiff will seek class certification under FRCP 23. The Plaintiff proposes that his class certification motion be filed by March 1, 2023. The Defendant shall have until April 3, 2023 to file opposition papers. The Plaintiff shall have until May 1, 2023 to file any reply. Life Spectacular is a private company that develops, produces and distributes skincare products. Life Spectacular is a private company that develops, produces and distributes skincare products under the brand name of PROVEN Skincare. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hsVThp at no extra charge.[CC] LIMESTONE BANCORP: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga provided the news through Newswires.com that Juan Monteverde, founder, and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Limestone Bancorp, Inc. (LMST), relating to its proposed acquisition by People's Bancorp Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, LMST shareholders are expected to receive 0.90 shares of People per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/limestone-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining the dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in LMST and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2022 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN] LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loyola University Of Chicago. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Loyola University Of Chicago, Case No. 1:22-cv-00821 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Loyola University Chicago -- https://www.luc.edu/ -- is a private Jesuit research university in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal LTF CLUB: Turner's Reimbursement Claim Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMUEL TURNER, Plaintiff v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT CO, LLC, et al. Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC filed on behalf of Defendants LTF Club Management Co., LLC and Life Time Fitness, Inc. on May 9, 2022. The matter was taken under submission on the papers by the previously assigned district judge. On Aug. 25, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge Drozd. The Court has twice dismissed Turner's putative class action complaint alleging various wage-and-hours violations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for pleading generalized and conclusory statements devoid of any factual detail. The Plaintiff timely filed the operative SAC on April 25, 2022, realleging ten of his original eleven claims. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts the following ten claims in his SAC: (1) failure to compensate overtime labor in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; (2) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a); (3) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (5) failure to timely pay final wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment in violation of California Labor Code Section 204; (7) failure to provide complete itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); (8) failure to reimburse work-related losses and expenses in violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802; (9) a derivative claim of unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. (UCL); and (10) a derivative claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code Sections 2689 et seq. On May 9, 2022, the Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss seeking to dismiss all 10 of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the pending motion on May 23, 2022, and the Defendants filed their reply thereto on June 2, 2022. Judge Drozd concludes that at this stage of the litigation, the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient because he need only give rise to a plausible inference that there was an instance where he was not properly paid, and he has identified several such instances. Indeed, the Plaintiff's SAC now contains sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Accordingly, due to the new allegations appearing in the SAC, the Plaintiff has now stated an overtime claim, meal break claim, rest break claim, and a claim for unpaid wages under California law. In addition, his claims five through seven, which are derivative of claims one through four, also survive the Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the allegations in the Plaintiff's SAC, Judge Drozd also concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to state an adequate failure to reimburse claim. Accordingly, the additional facts and information alleged in the Plaintiff's SAC fails to move his claim eight "across the line from conceivable to plausible," and, thus, is dismissed. Judge Drozd also does not grant the Plaintiff further leave to amend with respect to this claim. The Plaintiff's failure to reimburse claim is dismissed with prejudice. Finally, as the Court explained in its previous order, and as the Defendants acknowledge in their pending motion, the Plaintiff's claims nine and ten are derivative of his claims that sufficiently state a violation of California's Labor Code (i.e., claims one through seven). Because Judge Drozd has determined that the Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged his claims one through seven, claims nine and ten also survive the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants will file their answer to the remaining claims asserted by the Plaintiff in their SAC within 21 days of service of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/w3w6tudx from Leagle.com. MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Green Action Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Greene v. MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC. d/b/a LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order denying the Defendant's emergency motion to temporarily stay this action pending the determination for Lexus's Petition for Appeal to the Second Circuit and any appeal permitted to be heard before the Second Circuit concerning the September 29, 2022, Order granting class certification of the NDNCR Class. The Plaintiff includes BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, and LYMELL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Manhattan Luxury provides the retail sale of new and used automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NC7YwN at no extra charge.[CC] MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Watson Action Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson, et al., v. MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC. d/b/a LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01588-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order denying the the Defendant's emergency motion to temporarily stay this action pending the determination for Lexus's Petition for Appeal to the Second Circuit and any appeal permitted to be heard before the Second Circuit concerning the September 29, 2022, Order granting class certification of the NDNCR Class. The Plaintiff includes BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, and LYMELL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Manhattan Luxury provides the retail sale of new and used automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t4qnsw at no extra charge.[CC] MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum, Camero Seek to Strike Crandall's Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike the opinions, declaration, and testimony of Robert W. Crandall as inadmissible, and/or to give them no weight at class certification. Accordingly, the Court should use its "gatekeeping" powers to exclude the paragraphs of Dr. Crandall's report that do not meet the minimum standards or reliability and relevance, the Plaintiffs contend. In the alterative, if the Court believes it would be meaningful for the Parties to meet and confer before ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion, Plaintiffs' respectfully request that Plaintiffs' motion be denied without prejudice. As highlighted in Plaintiffs' Motion, Dr. Crandall's opinions fail to meet the basic standards for admissible expert evidence—they are not reliable, irrelevant, and will not assist the trier of fact. The majority of his declaration is filled with improper legal conclusions, false narratives, speculation and conjectural statements that should be stricken just as many other courts have frequently stricken portions of Dr. Crandall's reports on identical grounds, the Plaintiffs add. MarketSource is a sales acceleration company focused on delivering better outcomes for many of the world's most iconic brands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3taC0yl at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jennifer Brum and Michael Camero are: Melissa Grant, Esq. Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Mark Ozzello, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW 777 S. Alameda Street, Floor 2 Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Rodney Mesriani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Data Systems Inc. doing business as: Medical Revenue Services, Case No. 3:22-cv-00591-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Medical Data Systems, Inc. -- https://meddatsys.com/ -- provides revenue cycle management and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 371-4333 Fax: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com MELODY HULETT: Loses Renewed Bid for Judgment in Phillips --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA PHILLIPS, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, v. MELODY HULETT, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-03087-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order denying the Defendants' renewed motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial. The Court concludes that each of the Defendants' challenges to the jury verdict are either forfeited or fail on the merits. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for judgment as matter of law under Rule 50(b) or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59. At the conclusion of a trial beginning on May 31, 2022, a jury found the Defendants Melody Hulett, Russell Reynolds, Renee Hatfield, and Troy Dawdy liable for violating the rights of the Plaintiff class of women who were subjected to strip and body cavity searches during a March 31, 2011, cadet training exercise. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to each of the six testifying class members: Plaintiffs Patricia Phillips, Ieshia Brown, Miranda Howard, Teresa Williams, Veela Morris, and Michelle Wells. This case has a lengthy procedural history. In April 2016, U.S. District Judge Richard Mills denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims and granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NGAldc at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Data --------------------------------------------------------------- David Kauffman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06658-SK (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant, and its present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for violations of the Federal Wiretap (the "Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), in relation to the unauthorized interception, collection, recording, and dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data. This case stems from the Defendant's unauthorized interceptions and connections to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications when using the Defendant's Facebook or Messenger applications. The Defendant derives its primary stream of revenue through the Plaintiff's and Class Members' data it obtains by tracking the Plaintiff's and Class Members' movements online. Beginning April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Defendant to obtain its users' informed consent before tracking user internet activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Defendant lost access to its primary steam of revenue. Now, even when users do not consent to tracking, the Defendant tracks Facebook users' online activity and communications with external third-party websites by injecting JavaScript code into those sites. This means every time a user clicks a web link within the apps the Defendant owns such as Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger apps, the Defendant automatically directs them to the in-app browser the Defendant monitors rather than directing the user to a default browser. The Defendant fails to inform its users of this tracking. The information the Defendant intercepts, monitors, and records includes personally identifiable information ("PII"), private health details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential facts. The Defendant's undisclosed tracking of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' browsing activity and communications violates federal and state wiretap laws, entitling the Plaintiff and Class Members to damages and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Defendant's app over the past year. The Defendant owns and operates large social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart (SBN 225557) SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 866-219-3343 Fax: 866-219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619-222-7429 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com METV: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MeTV. The case is styled as David Vance Gardner, Jeannetta McElroy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MeTV, Case No. 1:22-cv-05963 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MeTV -- https://www.metv.com/ -- an acronym for Memorable Entertainment Television, is an American broadcast television network owned by Weigel Broadcasting.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Lesorgen Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Lesorgen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-50375 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its chewing gum under the Trident brand described as "Original Flavor" with a picture of a mint leaf ("Product"). The Defendant does not explicitly disclose the flavor beyond the word "Original" and the mint leaf, it is described in materials provided to third parties by Defendant as a combination of peppermint and cinnamon flavor. By representing the Product as "mint" or "peppermint" without any qualifying terms, consumers and Plaintiff expected its taste was from mint or peppermint ingredients. However, the ingredient list in small print on the back does not identify any mint or peppermint ingredients, and gets its mint or peppermint taste from "Natural and Artificial Flavor." Natural and artificial flavor are less expensive and more concentrated than real mint and peppermint, so less of it needs to be used. The Product's added natural and artificial flavor simulates, resembles and/or reinforces its characterizing flavor of mint or peppermint, and is required to be disclosed prominently on the front label to consumers, such as "Natural and Artificially Flavored Mint" or "Natural and Artificially Flavored Peppermint." The Product contains other false and misleading representations and omissions. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.99 for 14 sticks, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff bought the Product on one or more occasions. Mondelez Global LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and sells chewing gum under the Trident brand described as "Original Flavor" with a picture of a mint leaf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,v. MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order approving the proposed notice plan, which fully satisfies all requirements under Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. The Plaintiff's notice plan proposes sending individual mailed notice to each member of the class, since the Defendant has the addresses for each of these class members. In order to ensure that any class members who have since moved also receive notice, the Plaintiff's notice plan further proposes that notice be additionally issued via email, which can be easily and efficiently achieved since Defendant has these email addresses as well. Finally, the Plaintiff's notice plan envisions that certain class members -- those whose phone numbers are listed as a 'Landline' in Defendant's records -- be provided with both a one-page paper Affidavit form, along with the ability to submit their claim online, so that they can certify membership in the proposed class. The Plaintiff's proposed forms of notice are easy to read and understand, and thus comport with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. As discussed at length in the parties' briefing on class certification, there are approximately 9,186 class members in this action, as identified by the call records produced by Mobile Sphere. Once the Plaintiff receives the Defendant's unredacted call records (which, unlike Mobile Sphere's records, will reflect the particular campaign associated with each prerecorded call), any non-telemarketing calls can be easily excised by cross-referencing those records with Mobile Sphere's records of successfully-placed calls. The Plaintiff further proposes establishing a case-specific website to allow Class members the ability to obtain additional documents and information about the case, as well as the ability to certify membership in the class online without the need to obtain an envelope and postage in this digital age. Mosquito Squad offers barrier spraying and misting to control mosquito and ticks for Residential and Commercial customers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hmyVIS at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Samuel Lenorowitz are: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 NATIONWIDE TAX: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Taylor, an individual v. NATIONWIDE TAX EXPERTS, INC., a corporation; VANES SA OAKES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 22GDCV00790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought pursuant to Labor Code as a result of the Defendant refusal to pay the Plaintiff even undisputed funds that are at issue, such as for minimum wage underpayments and overtime that was dramatically underpaid. The Plaintiff was not paid a salary and did not fit into any overtime exemption, and as a result, he was paid overtime compensation for overtime hours that were recorded on his paystub. However, there were two problems with the overtime compensation. First, the actual hours reported on the paystub were not accurate and grossly underreported his overtime hours. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the hours that were put on his paystub were largely made up. Secondly, the overtime rate that was calculated was grossly off, as the rate was simply a product of the base hourly rate multiplied by 1.5. There was no effort to calculated the correct "regular rate" for overtime purposes, which should have included the commission earnings. On top of this, for a period of time during the statutory period, the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage. As a result, there are both minimum wage earnings owed, plus liquidated damages under Labor Code. And there were further minimum wage underpayments that resulted from the Defendant making up hours worked rather than keeping track of the actual hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a tax reduction specialist for Defendants. NATIONWIDE TAX EXPERTS, INC. have a business aimed at reducing or cancelling tax liabilities of individuals with the IRS and other agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 733-2498 Fax: (562) 733-2498 Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com NECTAR BRAND: Snow Sues Over Fake Limited-Time Sales ---------------------------------------------------- Amanda Snow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NECTAR BRAND LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-07912-MCS-MRW (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's violation of Washington's general prohibition on unfair or deceptive business practices by advertising fake limited-time sales, fake regular prices, and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices. The Defendant makes, sells, and markets mattresses, bedding, and other sleep-related products (the "the Nectar Products" or "Products"). The Products are sold online through Defendant's website, nectarsleep.com. the Defendant's website prominently advertises sales on its websites. These advertisements include purported regular prices, purported discounts, and a countdown timer that purportedly shows when the sale ends. Everything about the advertisements is false. the Defendant's products do not retail at the supposed regular prices it lists. In fact, the Defendant has never once sold a single product at its supposed "regular" price. The supposedly "discounted" prices are the prices that the Defendant always sells its products for. And when the countdown timer ends, the sale doesn't. the Defendant simply changes the name of the sale (for example, from "Labor Day" sale to "After Labor Day" sale) and continues to list its products at the same, supposedly discounted price. Like the Defendant's other customers, when the Plaintiff bought the Defendant's products, the Defendant advertised that a purported sale was going on. The Plaintiff believed that the Defendant Products that she purchased retailed for the displayed regular price. She further believed that she was getting a substantial discount from the regular price, and that the sale would end soon. These reasonable beliefs are what caused her to buy from the Defendant when she did. If the products she purchased weren't on sale, she would not have bought them and would have instead comparison shopped. But none of that was true. The Defendant's published regular prices were fake; the products the Plaintiff bought were not actually sold at those prices. There is also no actual discount from full price, and the sale never ends. Had the Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff bought a Nectar mattress and bedding. Nectar makes, sells, and markets the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com NEW YORK, NY: Renewed Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Women of Color for Equal Justice et al v. The City of New York., Case No. 1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a temporary restraining order (with notice) and preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 against the Defendants from: 1) entering into any agreement with any labor union that represents any City employees that includes any term or provision that requires any employee or prospective employee to be vaccinated or immunized for any reason as a "condition of employment" or "pre-condition of employment" with the City, and 2) all other injunctive relief requested in Plaintiffs Proposed Preliminary Injunction due to: a. the City's refusal to obtain a variance from the Secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which is required before any employer can enforce an "alternative safety method," specifically the medical treatment of a vaccine, different from the existing authorized OSHA safety methods for controlling infectious communicable diseases pursuant to 29 USC 655 §6(d); and b. the fact that the City's Vaccine Orders "conflict" with the safety scheme and religious liberty protection standard in the Federal OSH Act, conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 297 U.S. 261 (1990). The Plaintiffs include WOMEN OF COLOR FOR EQUAL JUSTICE, REMO DELLO IOIO, ELIZBETH LOIACONO, SUZANNE DEEGAN, MARITZA ROMERO, JULIA. HARDING, CHRISTINE O'REILLY, AYSE P. USTARES, SARA COOMBS-MORENO, JESUS COOMBS, ANGELA VELEZ, SANCHA BROWNE, AMOURA BRYAN, ZENA WOUADJOU, CHARISSE RIDULFO, TRACY- ANN FRANCIS MARTIN, KAREEM CAMPBELL, MICHELLE HEMMINGS HARRINGTON, MARK MAYNE, CARLA GRANT, OPHELA INNISS, CASSANDRA CHANDLER, AURA MOODY, EVELYN ZAPATA, SEAN MILAN, SONIA HERNANDEZ, BRUCE REID, JOSEPH RULLO, AND CURTIS BOYCE, JOSESPH SAVIANO, MONIQUE MORE, NATALYA HOGAN, JESSICA CSEPKU, ROSEANNE MUSTACCHIA, YULONDA SMITH, MARIA FIGARO, RASHEEN ODOM, FRANKIE TROTMAN, GEORGIANN GRATSLEY, EDWARD WEBER, MERVILYN WALLEN, PAULA SMITH, SARAH WIESEL SUZANNE SCHROETER, DAWN SCHOL, LYNDSAY WANSER, CHRISTIAN MURILLO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR ERIC L. ADAMS, COMISSIONER ASHWIN VASAN, MD, PHD DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND DOES 1-20. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G4Y1Ga at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jo Saint-George, Esq. 14216 Dunwood Valley Dr Bowie MD 20721-1246 E-mail: jo@woc4equaljustice.org and Donna Este-Green, Esq. 25 Fairway Dr. Hempstead, NY 11550 and Tricia S. Lindsay, Esq. 531 E. Lincoln Ave., Suite 5B Mount Vernon, New York 10552 Telephone: (860) 783-8877 Facsimile: (914) 840-1196 E-mail: TriciaLindsayLaw@gmail.com NFL: Plaintiff Allowed to File Documents Under Seal --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application under local Rule 79-5 to file documents under seal. 1. The sealed declaration of Kevin Trainer in Support of the Plaintiff's application to file documents under seal. 2. The unredacted version of the Second Corrections to the Expert Reports of Daniel A. Rascher, J. Douglas Zona and Sarah Butler. 3. The unredacted version of the Clarification of and Addendum to Expert Report of Daniel A. Rascher ISO Motion for Class Certification. NFL is a professional American football league that consists of 32 teams, divided equally between the American Football Conference (AFC) and the National Football Conference (NFC). The NFL is one of the major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada and the highest professional level of American football in the world.[5] A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zZh0y5 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Denial in Dewalt v. DPS Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, 2022-NCSC-105 ROCKY DEWALT, ROBERT PARHAM, ANTHONY McGEE, and SHAWN BONNETT, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. ERIK A. HOOKS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, and the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Case No. 165A21 (N.C.), Judge Paul Martin Newby of the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirms the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court considers whether the trial court erred by denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are inmates in North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) custody. They brought a class action lawsuit against the Defendants seeking to represent certain individuals in DPS custody who are being or will be subjected to solitary confinement. They do not challenge the use of solitary confinement in every housing setting or allege that solitary confinement is per se unconstitutional. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policies and practices concerning specific restrictive housing assignments violate the state constitution. On Oct. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class of current and future inmates assigned to one of five restrictive housing classifications. They alleged the conditions of confinement across the five restrictive housing assignments presented the same substantial risk of harm to all individuals and constituted cruel or unusual punishment. The five challenged restrictive housing settings are: Restrictive Housing for Disciplinary Purposes (RHDP), Restrictive Housing for Control Purposes, High Security Maximum Control (HCON), Restrictive Housing for Administrative Purposes, and the first two phases of the Rehabilitative Diversion Unit. The Defendants filed their answer on Jan. 21, 2020. On Feb. 4, 2020, the matter was designated as exceptional pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts and assigned to Judge James E. Hardin Jr. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 24, 2020 pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. They thereafter took discovery and submitted evidence in support of their motion. The Defendants filed their response in opposition with supporting evidence on Aug. 12, 2020. The trial court held a Webex hearing on Dec. 1, 2020 and heard oral argument from both parties. On Feb. 22, 2021, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and found that a certifiable class did not exist for three independent reasons: (1) they failed to demonstrate a common predominating issue among the group of potential class members, (2) they did not establish that the named representatives would fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members, and (3) litigating this case as a class action was not the superior method of adjudication. The Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Court under N.C.G.S. Section 7A-27(a)(4). Because Judge Newby concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there is no common predominating issue, he limits his review to that basis. The question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a common predominating issue among the proposed class members. Judge Newby finds that the Plaintiffs failed to present additional evidence, such as specific studies and expert witness reports to support their claim that DPS's policies and practices create a uniform risk of harm to individuals assigned to each of the challenged restrictive housing settings. The varying penological purposes also precluded a finding that the Plaintiffs established a common predominating issue. Moreover, the different procedural safeguards for each restrictive housing classification precluded a finding that plaintiffs established a common predominating issue. Finally, no common issue predominates over issues affecting only individual class members because of the fundamental differences across the housing classifications. Based on the foregoing, Judge Newby concludes the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the claims of all potential class members share a common issue capable of resolution with one stroke. The record evidence firmly supports the trial court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a common predominating issue among the purported class members. Since the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the Plaintiffs failed to meet this initial requirement to class certification, review of the additional bases is not needed. For these reasons, Judge Newby affirms the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mp3fnw8u from Leagle.com. ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation by Daniel K. Siegel and Kristi Graunke -- contact@acluofnc.org -- for the Plaintiff-Appellants. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Orlando L. Rodriguez, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, and James B. Trachtman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the Defendant-Appellees. Aviance Brown, Irving Joyner, Daryl Atkinson, Whitley Carpenter, and Ashley Mitchell -- info@forwardjustice.org -- for North Carolina Conference of the NAACP, amicus curiae. Lockamy Law Firm, by Scott Holmes; and Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, by Daniel Greenfield, Bradford Zukerman, and Kathrina Szymborski -- kathrina.szymborski@macarthurjustice.org -- for Professors Sharon Dolovich, Alexander A. Reinert, Margo Schlanger, and John F. Stinneford, amici curiae. Nichad Davis and Benjamin I. Friedman -- BENJAMIN.FRIEDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Medicine, for amici curiae. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Benzion Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09289 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Northstar Companies -- https://www.gotonls.com/ -- provides a full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Sues Over 21.31% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., ALEXANDER C. KARP, DAVID GLAZER, and SHYAM SANKAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02805-SKC (D. Colo., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Palantir's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Palantir securities at artificially inflated prices between February 16, 2021 and May 6, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Palantir's investments in marketable securities were having a significant negative impact on the Company's earnings per share (EPS) results; (ii) Palantir overstated the sustainability of its government segment's growth and revenues; (iii) Palantir was experiencing a significant slowdown in revenue growth, particularly among its government customers, despite ongoing global conflicts and market disruptions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company was likely to miss consensus estimates for its first quarter 2022 (Q1) EPS and second quarter 2022 (Q2) sales outlook; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. When the truth emerged, Palantir's stock price fell $2.02 per share, or 21.31 percent, to close at $7.46 per share on May 9, 2022, damaging investors. Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System is a county government office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Palantir Technologies Inc. is a software company that specializes in big data analytics, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com POLY-WOOD LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Giannaros Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giannaros v. Poly-Wood, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10351 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting motion to certify class for settlement purposes and for final approval of the amended class action settlement agreement by Stephen Giannaros. The suit alleges violation of American with Disabilities Act. Poly-Wood manufactures and distributes furniture.[CC] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00355-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification is extended to April 29, 2023. The Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion on October 19, 2022. Progressive Direct underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fNTLAe at no extra charge.[CC] RAINBOW CHILD: $151K in Fees and Costs Endorsed in Ramnarine Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RENA ANNE RAMNARINE, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. PWG-17-cv-02261 (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Ajmel A. Quereshi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, recommends that the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs. The lawsuit is a case concerning a childcare center's failure to adequately pay one of its employees in accordance with state law. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs. The case has been referred to Judge Quereshi for a report and recommendation. On Aug. 9, 2017, Ramnarine filed a class action complaint against the Rainbow Child Development Center (RCDC), Rainbow Academy, Inc. (RA), Kim Terese Mitchell, LLC -- three Maryland-based corporations that operate multiple child-care centers in the State -- and Kim Terese Mitchell, owner of RCDC and RA. The Plaintiff specifically alleged that the Defendants employed her and other similarly situated individuals, working them in excess of 40 hours per week while failing to pay them for all the hours they worked and failing to provide an increased rate for any overtime. Among other things, she alleged that she and other teachers were required to attend mandatory meetings for which Defendants failed to lawfully pay them. Given the numerous individuals which the Plaintiff alleged were affected by the Defendants' practices, she sought class relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and 216; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Labor & Empl. Art. Section 3-415; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Labor & Empl. Art., Section 3-501, et seq. Among other forms of relief, she asked the Court to certify the case as a class action, enter judgment against the Defendants, award her reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and enjoin the Defendants from taking future similar actions in violation of federal and state labor laws. On Sept. 28, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Although Kim was dismissed from the case, the Defendants' Motion was denied as Moot, given the filing of the Amended Complaint. On Dec. 1, 2017, the case was referred to the Honorable Timothy J. Sullivan for mediation. While the parties were preparing for mediation, they also conducted discovery. While these motions were pending and before the settlement conference could be conducted, the Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Second Amended Complaint included allegations regarding the lack of payment to Infant and Toddler Teachers, Assistants to Preschool Teachers, and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants, but deleted all allegations against Kim. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Gina L. Simms held a hearing in the case, after which the Court denied, as moot, the Motion to Quash regarding the Defendants' bank statements, given the Plaintiff's narrowing of her requests; and allowed the Plaintiff to collect some discovery from the Defendants. It denied discovery regarding Infant Toddler Teachers and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants. Although the Court deferred ruling on discovery related to Assistants to Preschool Teachers, it subsequently denied discovery as to this category, as well. On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. On March 9, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff subsequently withdrew her Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, as well. She also filed a second Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding allegations regarding the lack of payment for attendance at Mother's Day recitals, which the Court also denied. She also raised objection to the Court's prior discovery rulings, which the Court overruled. On May 31, 2018, the Defendants moved for summary judgment. In response, the Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the same issue. On July 26, 2018, the Court held Oral Argument on all pending motions. At the conclusion of the Argument, the Court: 1) granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA and the Plaintiff's claims under Maryland state law that she was not paid sufficient amounts for overtime work; 2) denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff's claim under state law that she was not paid at all for certain mandatory meetings; and 3) denied, as moot, the Plaintiff's class claims under the FLSA. The Plaintiff later asked to certify these rulings as final judgments so that she could appeal these rulings. On Nov. 7, 2018, the parties met for mediation, but were unable to resolve the case. On Aug. 2, 2019, the Defendants filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 2, 2020, the Court denied the Motion, reasoning that the Defendants misunderstood the Court's prior rulings and their lack of applicability to a teacher's claim that she was not paid for attending meetings. It held that there remain material questions of fact regarding whether the lunch meetings were mandatory, the number and length of the meetings, and the computation of the actual compensable time due to the Plaintiff. The case will proceed to trial. Over the course of the next year, the parties began preparations for trial. On May 19, 2021, the parties met once last time in an attempt to achieve a mediated resolution to the case. The mediation again proved unsuccessful. Beginning on June 7, 2021, the Court held a three-day bench trial on the Plaintiff's claim under the MPWCL that she was not paid for attending mandatory meetings. At the conclusion of trial, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,389.50, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section 3-507.2(b). The counsel for the Plaintiff was directed to file any motion for attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Court's Local Rule 109. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. Md. L.R. 109 (D. Md. 2018). On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Attorney's Fees currently pending before the Court and submitted a Bill of Costs. Specifically, she moved for an award of attorney's fees of $151,611.91 and costs of $23,171.55. Her counsel acknowledged that it had not been successful on all of its claims: in part because of this, it had reduced its fees from the original amount of $470,125. On Sept. 24, 2021, the Defendants filed Oppositions to both the Motion for Attorney's Fees and the Bill of Costs. On May 27, 2022, the Motions were referred to Judge Querishi chambers for the limited purpose of a Report and Recommendation regarding the pending Motion for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs. The dispute on attorneys' fees between the parties centers on: 1) whether the Plaintiff's proposed rates are customary for like work; 2) the reasonableness of the amount of time and labor the Plaintiff's counsel expended; 3) the novelty and difficulty of the legal questions raised; 4) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; and 5) the amount in controversy and the results obtained. Judge Quereshi recommends that (i) Omar Vincent Melehy's rate and Suvita Melehy's rates be reduced to $475 per hour; (ii) Andrew Balashov be compensated at $300 per hour, as he has requested; and (iii) recommends that the paralegal and law clerk rate be reduced to $150 per hour. He does not recommend that the Court accepts the Plaintiff's request for higher rates. Judge Quereshi recommends further that (i) the Plaintiff be reimbursed for 82.2 hours for time spent on summary judgment motions; and (ii) Mr. Balashov's time at trial be compensated at a reduced rate of $180 per hour. In addition to attorney's fees, the Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of costs for the following amounts: a) $400 for fees of the clerk; b) $1,273.77 for fees for service of summons and subpoena; c) $11,380.38 for fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; d) $3,622.40 for fees for disbursements for printing; e) $195 for fees for witnesses; and f) $600 for fees for exemplification and the costs of making any copies where the copies were necessarily obtained for use in the case. She additionally requests $5,700 for postage, computerized on-line research, courier expenses, and travel expenses. Altogether, she requests $23,171.55 in reimbursable costs. Among other things, Judge Quereshi finds that the Plaintiff has adequately justified the need for an expedited version of the transcript and has adequately justified and explained the $600 for which she seeks reimbursement. Based on the foregoing, Judge Quereshi recommends that the Plaintiff's counsel be awarded $127,573.63, which reflects a reduction in the hourly rates for the attorneys and paralegals, as well as the exclusion of particular hours related to the preparation of the Fee Petition and post-summary judgment dispositive motions. Additionally, he recommends that the Plaintiff's counsel be awarded $23,090.30, reflecting an award of all of the Plaintiff's requested costs minus $81.25 resulting from the wait time charge incurred during one of her depositions. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Report and Recommendation to the parties. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be served and filed within 14 days, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local Rule 301.5(b). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9d5ar6 from Leagle.com. RALPH MILLER: Court OKs Biolabs Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as New England Biolabs, Inc. v. RALPH T. MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-11234 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion to certify class of: "All persons who former employees of New England Biolabs, Inc and who are or were participants in the New England Biolabs, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust and whose accounts were liquidated on or both after September 30, 2016, through October 31, 2019, and the beneficiaries of such participants." Excluded from the Class are (a) the Third Party Defendants; (b) officers and directors of NEB; (c) beneficiaries of such persons or (d) immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving employee benefits. New England Biolabs produces and supplies recombinant and native enzyme reagents for the life science research, as well as providing products and services supporting genome editing, synthetic biology and next-generation sequencing.[CC] RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Unsafe Levels of Fluorine ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Krakauer and Joyce Rockwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC. ("REI"), Case No. 3:22-cv-05830 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased the Defendant's waterproof apparel (the "Products"), which are unfit for their intended use because they contain heightened levels of organic fluorine, which is itself indicative of unsafe per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS are readily absorbed into the body by various means, including by oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. Indeed, PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers in epidemiology studies. The highest concentrations of PFAS are often found in the liver, kidneys, and blood. The Defendant markets its products to consumers as "sustainable gear built to last," and "Fair Trade Certified™." In addition, Defendant publicly states that it is "working toward a sustainable future" by developing "REI Product Sustainability Standards" and is "raising the bar on chemical use in important categories such as apparel." The Defendant also represents to prospective consumers that "with every purchase you make with REI, you are choosing to steward the outdoors, support sustainable business and help the fight for life outside" and that REI is a member of the "Sustainable Apparel Coalition," which helps "retailers and manufacturers to measure their environmental and social impacts at each stage of the value chain." Finally, regarding the use of PFAS in its products, REI touts that is has "eliminated long-chain PFAS" from its waterproof REI Co-Op brand. Despite the representations made by Defendant to consumers regarding the safety and sustainability of its products, research has shown that these claims are false and misleading. Independent research conducted by Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit organization that conducts scientific studies, revealed that REI Co-Op Westwinds GTX Jacket (Women's), REI Co-Op Savanna Trails Pant (Men's), REI Co-Op Drypoint GTX Jacket (Men's), and REI Co-Op Rainwall Rain Jacket (Kids) all contain PFAS. Because several of the Products are waterproof jackets meant to resist rain, consumers frequently use the jackets' hoods, which rest directly against the skin, near the nose, mouth, and eyes. As a result, consumers are at a heightened risk of exposure to PFAS, including through ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation. Based on Defendant's representations, a reasonable consumer would expect that the Products can be safely used as marketed and sold. However, the Products are not safe, posing a significant health risk to unsuspecting consumers. Nor are the Products sustainable, as apparel produced with such high levels of organic fluorine is not responsibly sourced and is not compostable. Instead, the forever chemicals contained in the Products will never break down, but rather persist and accumulate in the environment. Yet, neither before or at the time of purchase does Defendant notify consumers like Plaintiffs that their Products are unsafe, contain heightened level of organic fluorine and certain named PFAS, or should otherwise be used with caution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring their claims against the Defendant for violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act; breach of implied warranty; breach of express warranty; fraud; constructive fraud; fraudulent inducement; money had and received; fraudulent omission or concealment; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; quasi-contract / unjust enrichment; negligent failure to warn; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's Products. The Defendant is an outdoor clothing apparel company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue, NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 Email: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Sean L. Litteral, Esq. Elvia M. Lopez, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com slitteral@bursor.com elopez@bursor.com - and - Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: jwolloch@bursor.com RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restonic Sales, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Restonic Sales, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06624 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Restonic -- https://restonic.com/ -- is a Manufacturing, Furniture, and Consumer Goods company located in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Craig Woolard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. & REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01684-TWR-NLS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its The Hefty "Recycling" bags (the "Products"). The Hefty "Recycling" bags are sold in 13- and 30-gallon sizes. Both sizes are sold in packaging depicted below. The illustration depicts the front of a typical box of Hefty Recycling Bags. Defendants place the prominent representation "RECYCLING" on the front label of the Hefty "Recycling" trash bags with a green background and white font. Next to the representation, Defendants include images of the Hefty "Recycling" trash bags filled with recyclable waste. Despite the Defendants' representations, the Hefty "Recycling" trash bags are not recyclable at California solid waste disposal facilities and are not suitable for the disposal of recyclable products at solid waste disposal facilities. Hefty "Recycling" trash bags are made from low-density polyethylene and are not recyclable at California's solid waste disposal facilities. When Hefty "Recycling" trash bags are delivered by waste haulers to a California solid waste disposal facility the bags and all of the otherwise recyclable items contained within them are not delivered to a recycling facility but are treated as regular solid waste materials. California's waste disposal facilities do not recycle either Hefty "Recycling" trash bags or the recyclable materials contained in them. The otherwise recyclable items (like cardboard, glass, aluminum, etc.) placed into Hefty "Recycling" trash bags by California consumers who are trying to recycle those items ultimately end up in landfills or incinerators and are not recycled. Prior to his purchase, the Plaintiff saw and reviewed the Defendants' advertising claims on the packaging and labeling itself, and he made his purchase of the trash bags in reliance thereon. The Plaintiff specifically relied upon representations made by the Defendants that its Hefty Recycling bags were suitable for recycling. Plaintiff did not receive the promised benefits or receive the full value of his purchase. The Plaintiff would purchase the Product in the future if it worked as advertised, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Hefty Recycling Trash Bags from a local Walmart. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED, APC 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 550-4005 Fax: (619) 550-4006 Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com RP ON-SITE: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY RONSHAE JONES, as an individual, on behalf of herself and the putative class, v. RP ON-SITE, LLC, a Foreign Company registered to do business in the State of California; and DOES 1 –10 inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04367-MCS-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order: -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 14,2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial) July 3, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) July 31, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off Aug. 28, 2023 -- Deadline to File a Motion Feb. 27, 2023 for Class Certification -- Deadline to File an Opposition March 20, 2023 to the Motion for Class Certification -- Deadline to File a Reply April 10, 2023 in Support of the Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing Date on Motion for May 1, 2023 Class Certification: The Court will set additional dates, including pretrial and trial dates, after a ruling on class certification is issued. To the extent applicable, the Court orders the parties to comply with the Order Re: Jury/Court Trial available on the Court’s website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-mark-c-scarsi. RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides property management software for the multifamily, commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WMw1Nv at no extra charge.[CC] SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART: Abrams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. The case is styled as Laura Abrams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04297-LMM (N.D. Ga., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Savannah College of Art and Design -- https://www.scad.edu/ -- is a private nonprofit art school with locations in Savannah, Georgia; Atlanta, Georgia; and Lacoste, France.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. Piedmont Center 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Ste 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (706) 322-6226 Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 500 Cincinnati, OH 45002 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Acuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR ACUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENATOR CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. and ATIQ REHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09151 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a construction assistant from April 2017 until February 2019. Senator Construction Group Inc. is a construction company with a principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BENJAMIN DRESNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS, INC., LAURA K. SHAWVER, JONATHAN PIAZZA, RUSS HAWKINSON, PETER THOMPSON, VICKIE L. CAPPS, ROBERT HERSHBERG, SAQIB ISLAM, ANDREW POWELL, JONATHAN ROOT, THILO SCHROEDER, and SCOTT PLATSHON, Defendants, Case No. C21-1499 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs bring the case as a potential class action alleging negligence and securities fraud based on the premise that Silverback, and the individually named Defendants, knew or should have known that their developmental drug was not safe or effective as an anti-tumor drug. Therefore, the filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), press releases and other reports made by Defendants were false and misled investors. Silverback is a biopharmaceutical company that seeks to develop treatments for cancer, chronic viral infections, and other serious diseases that express a protein called HER2. It developed its lead drug candidate, SBT6050, as a novel treatment for these diseases. SBT6050 is an Antibody-Drug Conjugate that targets tumors, such as breast, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancers. The drug is designed to activate myeloid cells, a class of immune cells that can make up to 10% of the cells in a tumor, and in doing so, promote direct tumor killing and recruitment of other immune cells that can also have tumor killing properties. In order for SBT6050 to be sold commercially, it must first undergo a clinical trial involving three phases of human testing. Phase 1 trials are designed to determine the pharmacologic actions of the drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and "if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness." The case arises out of Silverback's disclosures surrounding the Phase 1 testing of SBT6050. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on Nov. 5, 2021. They formulated their claims as actions under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and SEC Rule 10b-5. Their Securities Act claims pertain only to the Offering Documents, which the Plaintiffs allege were prepared negligently. The Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims encompass all filings, press releases, and statements made during the entire class period from Dec. 3, 2020, to March 31, 2022. With regard to this claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the Plaintiffs. Similar to their Section 11 claim, they premise this argument on the basis that the Defendants knew the trial findings were indicative of the drug's eventual failure, yet they continued to highlight only the positive findings giving the false impression that the trial was going to be successful. They claim that once the drug's limited success became known, the stock dropped and they experienced financial losses. The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs opposed. The Defendants and the Plaintiffs have each requested that the Court incorporates by reference a number of documents, mostly SEC filings and press releases, which form the basis of the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs request that Exhibits A-C be incorporated by reference are documents that are also included in the Defendants' request as well. The Defendants' Exhibits A-P are incorporated by reference in the Complaint. Neither party opposes consideration of the documents, and these documents form the basis of Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Pechman grants the request to incorporate by reference Exhibits A-C, and the Defendants' request to incorporate by reference Exhibits A-P. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants also request the Court takes judicial notice of several analyst reports (the Plaintiffs' Exhibits D and E, and the Defendants' Exhibits R-T). Because neither Party objects to or disputes the authenticity or accuracy of the reports, Judge Pechman grants the Plaintiffs' request to take judicial notice of Exhibits D and E, and the Defendants' Exhibits R-T as well. Finally, the Defendants request the Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits Q and U. Exhibit Q is the description of Silverback's clinical trial for SBT6050 that is available at ClinicalTrials.gov, a resource provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The information contained in Exhibit Q is not in dispute, therefore Judge Pechman grants the Defendants' request. Exhibit U is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's information page on clinical research, which discusses the different phases of clinical trials. While Exhibit U is not disputed by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants appear to want to use this information to counter Plaintiffs' claim that SBT6050 Phase 1/1b trial was designed to and did evaluate efficacy, which is in dispute. Judge Pechman says she cannot take judicial notice of this without potentially making a finding on a disputed fact. As such, she denies the Defendants' request to take judicial notice of Exhibit U. In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants first move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim on the theory that it is subject to the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), but that even if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) applies, the Plaintiffs still cannot meet that standard. Judge Pechman agrees with them. She finds that the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim is comprised of paragraphs taken from the Offering Documents and a concluding paragraph stating the claims are false and misleading. The Plaintiffs do not attempt to explain what in the paragraphs from the Offering Documents are false and misleading, let alone why they are material. Their failure to do so means that the claim does not clear even Rule 8(a) pleading standards. Section 10(b) and 10b-5 claims are subject to heightened pleading standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 9(b). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet this standard. Again, Judge Pechman agrees. She holds that the Plaintiffs' pleading for the 10(b) claim follows the same format as their Section 11 claim, and therefore contains all of the same issues. The difference is, the Plaintiffs cannot skirt the higher pleading requirements. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege the particularities of why the Defendants' statements are false and misleading, as well as allegations of scienter, they fail to satisfy the heightened pleading standards. Finally, Section 15 and Section 20(a) both require underlying primary violations of the securities laws. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a violation of the federal securities laws, their Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims are dismissed without prejudice. In light of the foregoing, Judge Pechman concludes that the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint fails to allege with the requisite particularity that Silverback and the individually named Defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions in the Offering Documents and during the class period in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. She therefore grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Should the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so within 30 days of the Order. Failure to do so will result in a dismissal of their claims with prejudice. The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9926br from Leagle.com. SMASHBURGER IP: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $5.5-M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Avery of Cnet.com wrote: Have you eaten at a Smashburger restaurant? If so, you might be eligible for part of a $5.5 million settlement the fast-casual chain has agreed to in order to resolve a class action lawsuit. According to a complaint filed in 2019, Smashburger CEO Tom Ryan promoted the chain's Triple Double hamburgers as having "three times the cheese and double the beef in every bite" in a 2017 marketing campaign. But, the plaintiffs allege that the Triple Double was made with two half-size patties, meaning it has the same amount of beef as the company's regular-sized burger. Smashburger did not respond to a request for comment. In court filings, it denied any wrongdoing. Smashburger, which has more than 312 corporate-owned and franchise locations, agreed to the financial settlement in September and the claims website is now live. What's Smashburger accused of in the class action suit? In 2017, Smashburger was sued by In-N-Out Burger, which alleged that Smashburger's Triple Double burger infringed on the trademark for In-N-Out's popular Double-Double burger. In-N-Out also added false advertising charges, alleging that an uncooked classic Smashburger patty weighed 5 ounces, while the Triple Double burger was just made of two 2.5-ounce beef patties. In a subsequent complaint filed in 2019, Smashburger customer Andre Galvan said he purchased about 10 Triple Double burgers after being misled about the amount of beef in the sandwiches. Galvan's suit, which alleged fraud and false advertising, was consolidated with other similar cases and granted class-action status. Who's eligible for payment? Anyone in the US who purchased a Smashburger Triple Double, French Onion Triple Double, Bacon Triple Double or Pub Triple Double hamburger between July 1, 2017, and May 31, 2019, is eligible to file a claim. Proof of purchase is not required to receive compensation. How much money could I receive? If the settlement receives final approval, class members will be eligible for a cash refund of $4 for each Double Triple hamburger they purchased -- up to five burgers, for a total of $20. In lieu of cash, they can also accept up to 10 vouchers entitling them to upgrade a single-beef burger to a double-beef one (worth about $2.50) with the purchase of a regularly priced entree. Alternatively, the vouchers can be used to get a small fountain soda at no additional cost (a $3 value). The terms of the agreement provide for $2.5 million in cash and 1.5 million product vouchers, adding at least another $3 million to the payout, according to a press announcement from Kroll, the firm managing the settlement. Read on: What Is a Class Action Lawsuit? How Do I File One? How do I file a claim in the Smashburger suit? If you believe you qualify for a payment under the settlement, you can submit a claim form on the settlement website. You can also request a claim form by calling 833-644-1593 or submit one by mail to: Smashburger Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration PO Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 When is the deadline to file a claim? The deadline to file a claim to receive payment from the Smashburger settlement is Jan. 17, 2023. All claims must be electronically submitted or postmarked by that date. The deadline to be excluded from the settlement and retain the right to file separate litigation is Dec. 19, 2022. When will I receive money in the Smashburger settlement? A final hearing for approval of the payout is scheduled for Jan. 30, 2023. Once the hearing is adjourned and any objections and appeals are resolved, cash payments and product vouchers will be mailed within 45 days. "If there are appeals, resolving them can take time -- potentially more than a year," reads a statement on the settlement website. "Please be patient."[GN] SUITE NEW YORK: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suite New York, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Suite New York, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06625 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SUITE NY -- https://www.suiteny.com/ -- is a full-service furniture showroom specializing in mid-century modern and contemporary designs for commercial and residential environments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com TACTILE SYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in Mart Class Suit in Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tactile Systems 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 7, 2022, that in the case captioned Brian Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT filed in Minnesota, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the Company remains a defendant on alleged Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims. The Company and certain of the Company's present or former officers have been sued in a purported securities class action lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 29, 2020, and that is pending under the caption Brian Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT (the "Mart lawsuit"). On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the Company and eight of the Company's present and former officers and directors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of investors who purchased the Company's common stock in the market during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020 ("alleged class period"). The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"): (1) that the Company and certain officer defendants made materially false or misleading public statements about the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, and results during the alleged class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2) that the Company and the individual defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in order to allow the individual defendants to sell the Company's stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (3) that the individual defendants engaged in improper insider trading of the Company's stock in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and (4) that the Company and the individual defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because each defendant is a controlling person. On June 18, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims against three individual defendants were dismissed, and most claims against four other individual defendants were dismissed. The Company remains a defendant on alleged Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims. The Company is defending the action as it proceeds. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., a medical technology company that develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. TENNESSEE: Chancery Court's Judgment in Oliver v. TDOSHS Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAYSPARKLES OLIVER v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. M2021-00121-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.), the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirms the chancery court's judgment: a. reversing in part and vacating in part the decision of an administrative law judge to order the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security to return the seized property to the purported owner; and b. remanding the administrative decision for further proceedings. The narcotics unit of the Knox County Sheriff's Department suspected that Victor Hines was involved in illegal drug activity. As a result of their investigation, the officers obtained a warrant to search the home. They found six ounces of cocaine, two ounces of powder cocaine, and two firearms at that address. This discovery led a judge to issue three warrants for Mr. Hines' arrest. A short time later, officers made two more controlled drug purchases from Mr. Hines at another residential location -- 818 Vermont Avenue owned by Mr. Hines's girlfriend, Ms. Oliver. Mr. Hines owned an adjacent vacant lot under a known alias. The officers obtained a warrant to search both 818 Vermont Avenue and the adjacent lot. On May 10, 2017, the officers executed the warrant. The search uncovered 59 Schedule II pills, $23,145 in U.S. currency, and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia. Mr. Hines was arrested. In addition to the contraband, the officers seized the currency, a Nissan Juke, and a Chevrolet Impala. An administrative law judge ordered the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security to return the seized property to the purported owner. The judge determined that the search warrant was issued without probable cause, resulting in an illegal seizure. And, if not, the Department failed to prove that it strictly complied with the forfeiture statutes. The Department petitioned for judicial review. After reviewing the administrative record, the chancery court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the administrative decision for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reviews forfeiture proceedings using the judicial review standards in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA") as modified in the forfeiture statute. First, Ms. Oliver argues that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the administrative decision. Judicial review under the UAPA is generally limited to final decisions. Looking to the substance of Ms. Oliver's pleading, the Court of Appeals cannot agree that it is an authorized method of seeking judicial review in a forfeiture action. The notice was conditional. It would only be effective if the administrative order was final and if the Department filed a petition for judicial review. Even then, Ms. Oliver only asked the court to review "motions not ruled on by the Administrative Judge; constitutional questions; and issues not addressed by the Administrative Judge in the final order." This was not a request for judicial review of a final agency decision. As such, the chancery court properly dismissed it. Next, Ms. Oliver maintains that she established standing. The administrative judge found that she was the registered owner of both vehicles and the owner of the residence in which the seized currency was found. The evidence does not preponderate against these findings. But, the Court of Appeals opines that Ms. Oliver only established ownership of the two vehicles, not the currency. Ownership of the residence in which the currency was found does not, by itself, establish ownership of the currency. So the chancery court did not err in remanding for a determination of standing. Ms. Oliver then contends that Officer Bryant made recklessly false statements in his affidavit and, without those false statements, the affidavit did not establish probable cause to search her residence. The Court of Appeals opines that the information in the affidavit, viewed as a whole, provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that a search warrant would uncover evidence of wrongdoing at 818 Vermont Avenue. Ms. Oliver's proof falls short. In common parlance, "818 Vermont Avenue" describes more than the residence at that address. It also encompasses the surrounding lot, including the driveway. The statements in the affidavit describing the location of the drug purchases were not false. Ms. Oliver complains that the administrative record was assembled after the hearing. And there is no proof that the hearing notice was filed with the Administrative Procedures Division. The Court of Appeals' review is based on the evidence in the record. It finds that the administrative judge certified and approved the contents of this record, which includes a timely hearing notice. So the evidence preponderates against the administrative finding that the Department failed to set Ms. Oliver's claim on the hearing docket within the allotted time. Finally, Ms. Oliver requests an award of attorney's fees on appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The Court of Appeals holds that it is questionable whether the provisional notice of review sought to enforce federal civil rights laws. But even assuming it did, he says Ms. Oliver is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees on this basis. Attorney's fees may only be awarded to a prevailing party. Ms. Oliver did not prevail in her state court action. The Court of Appeals concludes that the administrative order was final. The chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Department's petition for judicial review. It properly dismissed the provisional notice of review because it did not seek the same relief. The Court of Appeals also concludes that the agency decision violated constitutional and statutory provisions and was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. So it affirms the chancery court's judgment. The motion for a qualified administrative judge, motion to dismiss, and motion to maintain a class action do not appear in the administrative record. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5w54u2 from Leagle.com. Herbert S. Moncier -- moncier@moncierlaw.com -- Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, DaySparkles Oliver. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, Andree Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General, and Miranda Jones, Assistant Attorney General, for the Appellee, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security. TERRA BEAUTY PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terra Beauty Products, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terra Beauty Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09333-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Terra Beauty -- https://terrabeautybars.com/ -- is a beauty trading company that develops, manufactures and distributes cosmetic, personal care, sanitizing and disinfecting solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TIMBERLAND BANK: Court Dismisses Rieken Class Suit With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHERYL RIEKEN, Plaintiff v. TIMBERLAND BANK, Defendant, Case No. C22-5385 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma: a. dismisses the case with prejudice; b. denies as moot the Defendant Timberland Bank's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and purported-Plaintiff Angela Ruth's Motion to Remand; and c. denies Ruth's Motion to Deem Defendant's Rule 12 Motion Moot or, in the Alternative, to Notify the Trustee Per Rule 17(a)(3) and for Leave to Add Angela Ruth Under Rule 21. Ms. Rieken filed a class action complaint against Timberland in Pierce County Superior Court in April 2022. She alleges that Timberland improperly charged her and others like her certain insufficient funds fees and overdraft fees. She raises state law claims alleging breach of contract, violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW Ch. 19.86. Timberland removed the case to federal court based on "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334 and 1452. It asserts that Rieken's claims are related to her bankruptcy proceeding because the claims arose in April 2019 and May 2020 -- before she filed for bankruptcy in March 2021. As a result, Rieken's claims belong to the bankruptcy estate. Timberland asks the Court to dismiss Rieken's claims, arguing she is judicially estopped from bringing her claims because she did not disclose them in her bankruptcy proceeding. It also contends that federal law preempts Rieken's claims and that Rieken fails to state plausible claims for relief on any of her claims. In response to Timberland's motion to dismiss, Rieken amended her complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). This amended complaint purported to remove Rieken as the named Plaintiff and substitute herself with a new plaintiff, Ruth. Ruth, as the purported named Plaintiff, moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that, now that Ms. Rieken is no longer in the case, the action is no longer related to Rieken's bankruptcy proceeding. She claims the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Ruth also asserts that, even if the action is related to Rieken's bankruptcy proceeding, it would be subject to discretionary remand under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(b). Ms. Ruth also moves to deem Timberland's motion to dismiss moot in light of her amended complaint. She argues in the alternative that, if the amended complaint is not valid and Rieken remains the named plaintiff in the action, Rieken should be granted leave to both notify the bankruptcy trustee of the action under Rule 17(a)(3) and add Ruth as a party under Rule 21. She also moves in the alternative to reset or moot the deadline to respond to Timberland's motion to dismiss. Timberland argues that Rieken was not entitled to amend the complaint under Rule 15 to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff and, therefore, the amended pleading did not moot the motion to dismiss. It also argues that Rieken's request for discretionary remand under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(b) is waived because she was required to make this request within 30 days of removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Finally, it asserts that, because Rieken's claims belong to her bankruptcy estate, she lacks standing to amend the complaint to substitute Ruth into the action and, instead, the Court must dismiss the action. Judge Settle must determine whether Rieken was entitled to amend the complaint to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff. To make this determination, he first considers whether Rieken has standing to sue. He finds that Rieken's attempt to amend the complaint to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff was ineffective. Ms. Rieken does not satisfy her burden under Rule 17(a)(3). She cannot establish that it was difficult to determine that the bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest. She also does not argue or present any evidence that an understandable mistake was made in bringing the action in her own name. Accordingly, the amended complaint does not function as the operative complaint, and it does not moot Timberland's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Judge Settle dismisses the case with prejudice and denies Rieken's motion for leave to notify the bankruptcy trustee. Because Rieken lacks the authority to prosecute the case under Rule 17(a)(1), he also denies her motion for leave to add Ruth as a party under Rule 21. Furthermore, because Rieken was not authorized to amend the complaint to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff, she denies as moot the motion to remand. Additionally, because the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest -- a basis not raised in Timberland's motion to dismiss -- Judge Settle denies as moot the motion to dismiss. As such, he denies as moot Rieken's motion to deem Timberland's Rule 12(b)(6) motion moot. Finally, he also denies as moot Rieken's motion for leave to oppose Timberland's motion to dismiss. The Clerk will enter a judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/msdcfhmf from Leagle.com. TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rene Hernandez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Todd Pipe and Supply, LLC, Todd Pipe Holdings, Inc., Morsco Supply, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30190 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court o, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07892-SB-PLA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Todd Pipe & Supply, LLC -- https://toddpipe.reece.com/ -- operates as a plumbing supply distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego F. Aviles, Esq. Robert Barkev Payaslyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com diego@tomorrowlaw.com robert@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Henry Aaron Elyashar, Esq. ELYASHAR LAW FIRM APC 9663 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 1052 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (818) 584-2617 Email: henry@elyasharlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith A Jacoby, Esq. Rachael Sarah Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Phone: (310) 553-0308 Fax: (310) 553-5583 Email: kjacoby@littler.com rlavi@littler.com - and - Alyssa S Gjedsted, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4300 Fax: (213) 443-4299 Email: agjedsted@littler.com TURBIE TWIST LP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turbie Twist, LP. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Turbie Twist, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-09320 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Turbie Twist -- https://www.turbietwist.com/ -- is the world's leading hair towel brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com U.S. RENAL CARE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Earned and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawntia Smith, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Texas Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05979 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act against the Defendants for unpaid earned wages and overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, including work that was not recorded or accounted for by Defendant's time keeping system (hereinafter referenced as "work off the clock") and, in work weeks in which she worked in excess of forty hours including the work off the clock, was denied time and one-half compensation for all such hours. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's management employees, altered and reduced the electronic timesheets of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class, including other dialysis technicians, nurses and front office staff, which resulted in non-payment of earned wages and overtime wages, in order to avoid the obligations imposed by the federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly "dialysis technician" from April 2020 to September 2021. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC. provides dialysis services and treatments for patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 UNION PACIFIC: Relief From Judgment Nixed; Blankinship Stays Closed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, James Blankinship, Plaintiff v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-21-00072-TUC-RM (D. Ariz.), Judge Rosemary Marquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denies Blankinship's Motion for Relief from Judgment from the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order granting Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment and entry of Final Judgment. The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") regulations require railroad conductors to pass a vision acuity examination which tests a conductor's ability to distinguish the colors of railroad signals. If an individual fails to meet the visual acuity thresholds, on request, they would be subjected to further medical evaluations to determine the individual's ability to safely perform as a conductor. The further evaluation employed by Union Pacific consists of a Color Vision Field Test ("CVFT") which measures the speed and accuracy of an individual's ability to identify railroad signals. In 2016, the Defendant implemented a revised CVFT, known as the Light Cannon Test. The parties dispute whether the Light Cannon Test meets the FRA requirements that the testing be valid, reliable, and comparable. The Plaintiff underwent color vision testing for the FRA recertification process on three separate occasions before the implementation of the Light Cannon Test. Ultimately, it was determined that he did not meet the requirements for recertification, and he was removed from the conductor position. In February 2016, Union Pacific employees initiated a class action (Harris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 329 F.R.D. 616 (D. Neb. 2019)) alleging disability discrimination; a class action in which the Court recognized the Plaintiff to be a putative class member. The initial class definition from the Harris complaint focused on employees removed from service for reasons relating to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. However, on Aug. 17, 2018, the Harris plaintiffs narrowed the operative class definition when moving for class certification on the disparate treatment claim only and defined the class as: "All individuals who have been or will be subject to a fitness-for-duty examination as a result of a reportable health event at any time from Sept. 18, 2014 until the final resolution of this action." On Feb. 5, 2019, the District of Nebraska certified the class as defined in the Aug. 17, 2018 class definition. However, on March 24, 2020, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District of Nebraska and denied class certification. Therefore, on April 10, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On Feb. 20, 2021, he initiated the instant action with a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed on March 24, 2021 alleging violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 7, 2022, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Response. After the Defendant's Reply, on Sept. 6, 2022, this Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As a result, the Plaintiff's two remaining claims from his FAC were dismissed with prejudice as time barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies within the allowable time. On Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this pending Motion. In his Motion, he attaches 12 exhibits totaling 645 pages to argue that he should be relieved from final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3) because Union Pacific committed a fraud on the Court. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant grossly misrepresented the definition of the term "reportable health event" and the record and procedural history of Harris. Blankinship asserts he, along with numerous other color vision plaintiffs, was included on the class list provided by Union Pacific. Yet now at summary judgment in this case, the Defendant is attempting to redefine the class to remove Blankinship. Additionally, the Plaintiff argues relief from judgment is justified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), 60(b)(6) and 59(e) due to either a mistake by the court, extraordinary circumstances, or clear error respectively. On Oct. 4, 2022, the Defendant filed its Response requesting the Court to reject the Plaintiff's inaccurate accusations and deny his Motion. Among other things, it states that the Plaintiff provided no specific evidence of clear error nor any extraordinary circumstances to justify relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), 60(b)(6), or 59(e). In his Oct. 11, 2022 reply, the Plaintiff reiterates that the District of Nebraska certified a class that included him and that he remained a member of the class until the Eighth Circuit reversed class certification on March 24, 2020. He concludes his Reply by requesting that the Court remedies the mistake made because of Union Pacific's misrepresentations. Judge Marquez finds that the Plaintiff attaches nearly 650 pages of exhibits to his Motion. This newly presented evidence, she concludes, is neither recently discovered nor does the Plaintiff indicate why the information was not presented earlier. She holds that the Plaintiff offers no valid reason why he could not have made these arguments and presented this evidence in his Opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. First, Judge Marquez does not find that the Defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct by contesting the Plaintiff's interpretation of the relevant facts or by arguing that he was not a member of the certified class. Second, undisputedly, the Plaintiff was not included in the class definition when the Harris plaintiffs moved for certification, and that remains true. Therefore, tolling ceased once the Plaintiff had adequate notice he was not included in the operative class definition. This occurred on Aug. 17, 2018, and because he failed to file his charge with the EEOC within 300 days of this date, his FAC was correctly dismissed as time barred. Judge Marquez is not convinced that the Court made a mistake in its Sept. 6, 2022 Order granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Finally, relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is inapplicable. Judge Marquez finds no extraordinary circumstances to justify granting the Plaintiff relief, nor are there any circumstances beyond the Plaintiff's control that prevented him from making these arguments in his Opposition to the Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion. Given that relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is to be reserved for extraordinary cases, and used sparingly, it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant him relief under this theory. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment is denied, and the case is to remain closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jux3nya from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Garrison Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GARRISON, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Frank Garrison, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01895-RLY-TAB, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Frank Garrison brought this suit against the Secretary of the Department of Education and the Department itself to prevent the Department from implementing student debt relief plan, which will tax Garrison and similarly situated Pell Grant recipients approximately $1,000 dollars more than before they received relief. On October 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which added an additional Plaintiff, Noel Johnson. The Amended Complaint also alleges the beginnings of a class action suit for a putative class of "all persons who qualify for impending automatic loan cancellation and reside in states imposing tax obligations for any amount of debt cancelled." The Plaintiffs then moved for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and to certify this class. On October 21, 2022, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint without prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Richard L. Young. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the student loan relief plan fairly caused their injury. The Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge that plan and this case did not present a justiciable controversy, ruled the court. The Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class for a Preliminary Injunction and for a Temporary Restraining Order were denied as moot. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response were also denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Frank Garrison, et al. v. U.S. Department of Education, et al., Case No. 22-2886, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees FRANK GARRISON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Caleb Kruckenberg, Esq. Michael A. Poon, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (202) 888-6881 E-mail: CKruckenberg@pacificlegal.org MPoon@pacificlegal.org US BANCORP: Portnoy Firm Files Lawsuit Over Securities Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises U.S. Bancorp ("U.S. Bancorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: USB) investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors. U.S. Bancorp investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone at 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights or click here: https://portnoylaw.com/u-s-bancorp/ to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) U.S. Bank created sales pressure on its employees that led them to open credit cards, lines of credit, and deposit accounts without consumers' knowledge and consent; (2) since at least 2015, U.S. Bank and by extension, U.S. Bancorp, was aware of such unauthorized conduct and that it was violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers; (3) U.S. Bancorp failed to properly monitor its employees from engaging in such unlawful conduct, detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers; (4) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or investigation; (5) U.S. Bancorp's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Investors can visit Portnoy's website to review more information and submit their transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] US DOMINION: Cooper Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER L. COOPER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jennifer L. Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. US Dominion, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-CV-02672-PAB-STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the Defendants alleging four claims: (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), (2) deprivation of equal protection by Dominion's state action, (3) deprivation of First Amendment by Dominion's state action, and (4) civil conspiracy. The Plaintiffs, who are Michigan citizens, were "poll watchers" or "poll challengers" in Michigan during the 2020 general election. The Plaintiffs each claim to have witnessed numerous problems or irregularities on Election Day. The Plaintiffs believe that they have been silenced from speaking about various topics, including a Michigan report on the 2020 election. On February 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Dominion's allegedly discriminatory conduct occurred under color of state law. The appellate case is captioned Cooper, et al. v. US Dominion, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1361, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' docketing statement was due on November 7, 2022; -- Appellants' transcript order form was due on November 7, 2022; and -- Appellants' and Appellees' notice of appearance was due on November 7, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER L. COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas A. Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 - and - Robert A. McGuire, III, Esq. ROBERT MCGUIRE LAW FIRM 1624 Market Street, Suite 226 PMB 86685 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 420-1395 Defendants-Appellees US DOMINION, INC., et al. are represented by: Bridget DuPey, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 - and - Rodney Alan Smolla, Esq. 4601 Concord Pike Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (864) 373-3882 VANGUARD MARKETING: Ortiz Sues Over Unlawful Use of Voice Prints ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yrasema Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VANGUARD MARKETING CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01685-RBM-JLB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to put an end to its unlawful use, examination, and recording of the Plaintiff's and putative Class members' biometric voice prints without express written consent. The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics. The system the Defendant uses allows it to authenticate or refute the true identity of callers, among other things. The system contains voice recognition software that creates a biometric voice print of each caller. The system then allows the Defendant to analyze the callers' voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of their statements. The Defendant does this for anyone that calls it, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant does not obtain "express written consent" from any callers before examining and analyzing their voices. Recognizing the need to protect its residents from situations like these, California enacted the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to regulate entities that examine or record California residents' voice prints or voice stress patterns without obtaining the residents' express written consent first. Despite this law, the Defendant disregards California residents' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully examines or records their voices in violation of CIPA. Specifically, the Defendant has violated (and continues to violate) CIPA because it uses a system which examines or records California residents' "voice prints or voice stress patterns to determine the truth or falsity of statements" without their express written consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has called the Defendant and spoken with representatives on the telephone. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart (SBN 225557) SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 866-219-3343 Fax: 866-219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619-222-7429 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com WAKEMED HEALTH: Matthiae Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WakeMed Health and Hospitals. The case is styled as Linda Matthiae, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WakeMed Health and Hospitals, Case No. 5:22-cv-00433-D (E.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. WakeMed Health and Hospitals -- https://www.wakemed.org/ -- is a 919-bed healthcare system with multiple facilities placed around the metropolitan Raleigh, North Carolina area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Cert Discovery Completion Due Dec 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sunshine Children's Learning Center, LLC v. Waste Connections of Florida, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-62123 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order on motion for extension of time of discovery cutoff deadline. The parties shall complete class certification discovery on or before December 15, 2022, says Judge Bloom. The nature of suit states other contract. Sunshine is an educational daycare facility located in Tampa, Florida. Waste Connections offers trash pickup, dumpster rentals, recycling, and garbage pickup services.[CC] WEBMD LLC: Bid to Dismiss Lebakken's 1st Amended VPPA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBRA LEBAKKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBMD, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, denies WebMD's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The lawsuit is a putative class action case brought under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The case arises under the VPPA from allegations that WebMD improperly disclosed personally identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiffs to Facebook through an online tool called the Facebook Tracking Pixel. WebMD owns and operates the popular website, WebMD.com, which provides online health information and medical news to individuals and generates revenue through advertising on its website. It delivers some of that health and medical information to individuals through videos, and it allegedly refines content for specific viewers based on prior videos they have watched on the website. Such content refining is made possible through data aggregators like Facebook, which harvest activity data of online users to create custom audiences and other similar tools for targeted advertising. On its website, WebMD hosts one of Facebook's data aggregation tools, the Facebook Tracking Pixel, to analyze the online activity of WebMD users. Lebakken alleges in detail how WebMD's Facebook Tracking Pixel records user activity, transmits that data to Facebook, and employs the aggregated data to improve the targeting of its online content to WebMD users. Ms. Lebakken created a Facebook account in 2007 and a WebMD account in 2017, the latter requiring her to submit her email address and birthday to create the account. She also provided her email address to WebMD to receive an e-newsletter, which frequently contained video content. She alleges that when she watched videos on WebMD.com, WebMD disclosed her Facebook ID, her email address, and the video detail, along with other information, to Facebook. On Feb. 15, 2022, Lebakken brought the present action, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeking damages for the alleged violations of the VPPA. WebMD now moves to dismiss the claims in Lebakken's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. WebMD moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing that Lebakken has failed to state a claim under the VPPA. In support of its motion to dismiss, WebMD first argues that Lebakken is not a consumer of any video service, then argues that any disclosure of Lebakken's information did not constitute PII, and finally argues that WebMD did not disclose any PII knowingly. Judge Thrash opines that Lebakken has adequately pleaded that she was a subscriber under the VPPA and has adequately stated a claim as a consumer under the VPPA. He finds that Lebakken alleges more than just the free downloading of a mobile application onto her smartphone; she alleges that she exchanged her email address to receive the WebMD e-newsletter and that she also created her own WebMD account. He also finds that Lebakken has plausibly pleaded that WebMD's e-newsletter constitutes a good or service under the VPPA. Judge Thrash opines further that Lebakken adequately alleged that WebMD disclosed her Facebook ID and email address in connection with her video viewing information to Facebook and that the disclosure of such information constituted a disclosure of PII, supporting a plausible claim under the VPPA. Whether Lebakken had recently logged into her Facebook account, such that transmission of her Facebook ID upon viewing WebMD videos would be possible, is a question of fact appropriate for resolution at a later stage in this litigation. For now, he finds sufficient that Lebakken has alleged the disclosure itself. Accordingly, WebMD is not entitled to dismissal of the FAC on this ground. Finally, Judge Thrash opines that the Court is not faced with evaluating evidence that WebMD knew Facebook would combine the video viewing and identity information of its consumers; rather, the question is whether the allegations of the FAC plausibly state a claim under the VPPA upon which relief may be granted. He finds that Lebakken does plausibly allege WebMD's conscious transmission of its consumers' private information, and thus, WebMD is not entitled to dismissal of the First Amended Complaint on that ground. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vdv8szb from Leagle.com. WESTLAKE ROYAL: Servin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ELVIA SERVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTLAKE ROYAL STONE, LLC; BORAL STONE PRODUCTS, LLC; IRUNDY RAMOS; DARREN SCHULZ; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV000957, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Napa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 26, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06544 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages earned and owed at separation of employment; and unfair business practices. Westlake Royal Stone, LLC is an architectural stone veneer supplier, headquartered in Texas. Boral Stone Products, LLC is a manufacturer of cultured stone veneer products, headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: John S. Battenfeld, Esq. Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com WHELAN SECURITY: Teems Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Teems, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; GARDAWORLD SECURITYCORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34844 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 1, 2022), is brought under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 for the Defendants' violation of the Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff proper compensation. The Defendants' violated the Labor Code based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from in or around September 2021, until on or about April 6, 2022. WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Danielle E. Montero, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com dmontero@lelawfirm.com wht2@lelawfirm.com WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN K. CARPENTER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Susan Carpenter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated trustee for H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, v. William Douglas Management, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00019-RJC-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the North Carolina Superior Court for Mecklenburg County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for violations of the Transfer Fee Covenant Prohibition Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, as well as negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy. The Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment for Defendants' collection of fees Plaintiff characterizes as unlawful transfer fees. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. on September 29, 2022. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to demonstrate that the fees were not actually lawfully owed and due. The appellate case is captioned Susan Carpenter v. William Douglas Management, Inc., Case No. 22-2106, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 5, 2022; and -- Response Brief is due on January 4, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN K. CARPENTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated trustee for H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, is represented by: Scott Crissman Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 - and - Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5016 - and - Jeremy Richard Williams, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5017 Defendants-Appellees WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT INC., et al. are represented by: Jeffrey Brandt Kuykendal, Esq. MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC P.O. Box 30307 Charlotte, NC 28230 Telephone: (704) 643-6303 - and - Steven Ari Meckler, Esq. SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, PLLC 101 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28280 Telephone: (704) 945-2187 - and - Philip M. Oliss, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-7164 - and - Alexander Walton Prunka, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-1327 - and - Frederick Martin Thurman, Jr., Esq. SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, PLLC 101 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28280 Telephone: (704) 375-0057 WINS FINANCE: Kamau Shareholder Suit Pending -------------------------------------------- Wins Finance Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that the shareholder class action captioned Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al is pending in court since June 30, 2020. On July 24, 2020, Samuel Kamau filed a shareholder class action complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period from October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020 against Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Renhui Mu, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-06656). Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that the repayment of a RMB 580 million "loan" to Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. was "highly uncertain," and that the resignation of the Company's former independent auditor was "foreseeably likely" given the non-payment of the foregoing loan as well as alleged material weaknesses in the Company's control over financial reporting. As of this date and to the best of our knowledge, neither Wins Finance nor the individual Defendants have been served or have agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service with the Court concerning service upon any Defendant. In accordance with procedural rules applicable to such securities class actions, motions for appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel were filed on or before September 24, 2020, following the Court's resolution of which it is common for the newly-appointed lead plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint and allegations underlying the claims. There is not any update progress since from June 30, 2020. Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation Limited. WORKHORSE INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Derivative Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Workhorse Group Inc. (Nasdaq: WKHS) ("Workhorse" or "the Company"), an American technology company focused on pioneering the transition to zero-emission commercial vehicles, today announced that it has entered into binding term sheets that will resolve the previously disclosed securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the related shareholder derivative actions pending in the Central District of California, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, State District Court of Nevada and certain other jurisdictions. The settlement class in the class action consists of purchasers of Workhorse stock or other securities between March 10, 2020, and May 10, 2021, seeking to recover damages under the federal securities laws for statements made by Workhorse during that time period. Under the terms of the settlement of the class action and in the resolution of all claims, Workhorse will pay $15 million in cash, which will be funded fully by proceeds of available insurance, and $20 million payable in Workhorse stock. Under the terms of the settlement of the shareholder derivative actions, the Company will adopt and/or agree to continue to maintain a series of corporate governance changes regarding the Company's compliance program and internal controls. The settlements will contain no admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the defendants (including Workhorse) and full releases of all defendants. The settlements will be subject to final documentation, public notice, and court approval by the Central District of California (for the class action) and the State District Court of Nevada (for the shareholder derivative actions). About Workhorse Group Inc. Workhorse is a technology company focused on providing drone-integrated electric vehicles to the last-mile delivery sector. As an American original equipment manufacturer, we design and build high-performance, battery-electric vehicles including trucks and aircraft. Workhorse also develops cloud-based, real-time telematics performance monitoring systems that are fully integrated with our vehicles and enable fleet operators to optimize energy and route efficiency. All Workhorse vehicles are designed to make the movement of people and goods more efficient and less harmful to the environment. For additional information visit workhorse.com. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements reflecting our current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements are made under the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this document, the words "anticipate," "expect," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate," "will," and "continue" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including, among others, risks and uncertainties associated with negotiating final terms of the stipulations of settlement, obtaining court approval of the proposed settlements, the number of purported class members who may opt out of the proposed class action settlement, any fee award to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the derivative case settlement, the effectiveness of releases, and whether any proposed settlement is opposed and/or appealed. There can be no assurance that the litigation will be finally resolved in accordance with the term sheets or at all. For a further description of the risks and uncertainties relating to the business of the Company in general, see the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2022, and June 30, 2022. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as required by law. Media Contact: Aaron Palash / Greg Klassen Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher 212-355-4449 Investor Relations Contact: Matt Glover and Tom Colton Gateway Investor Relations 949-574-3860 WKHS@gatewayir.com [GN] XTREME MANUFACTURING: Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01704-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement: 1. the class is defined as follows: "All current and former non-exempt California employees of Xtreme who worked at least one shift from December 4, 2016 to March 1, 2022. 2. Preliminary approval of the PAGA payment is granted. 3. The proposed notice plan and deadlines are approved. 4. Rudy Gonzalez is appointed the Class Representative for the Settlement Class. 5. The firm of Mayall Hurley P.C.is appointed as Class Counsel. 6. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 7. The Class Representative incentive award for Plaintiff is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $5,000, subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. 8. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. 9. Class Counsel's request for fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and costs to be determined is granted preliminarily, subject to review of counsel's petition for fees and costs at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. 10. The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative enhancement fee shall be filed no later than February 10, 2023. 11. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $5,500. 12. The proposed Notice Packet is preliminarily approved, and the parties shall file a finalized Notice with the required revisions for the Court's approval within seven days of the date of service of this Order. 13. The Settlement Administrator shall mail the approved Class Notice Packet no later than December 5, 2022. The Court finds the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth Circuit precedent weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Rudy Gonzalez asserts Xtreme failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws as provided in the California Labor Code, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Business and Professions Code. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t2937t at no extra charge.[CC] YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Wins Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON DOVER, et al., v. YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,, Case No. 2:20-cv-11643-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an amended order regarding plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows: -- Class Members For settlement purposes only, the class is defined as: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Yanfeng Automotive Interior Systems and Investment 401(k) Plan from January 1, 2018 through October 13, 2022, the date of the original order granting preliminarily approval. -- Class Representatives and Class Counsel For settlement purposes only, Jason Dover, Eric Simpson, and Steven Leggett are preliminarily certified as Class Representatives. Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Fink Bressack LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. -- Conditional Class Certification For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily finds that this lawsuit satisfies the requirements for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), namely: The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties related to the of the Yanfeng Automotive Interior Systems Savings and Investment 401(k) Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The parties have presented for the Court's approval a Settlement Agreement concerning the claims remaining in this case. The Court, having reviewed the Agreement and heard the parties' presentations, now enters these findings and conclusions: Yanfeng is supplier of instrument panels and cockpit systems, door panels, floor consoles and overhead consoles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DDE8U5 at no extra charge.[CC] YSA ARM LLC: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against YSA ARM LLC. The case is styled as Diana Lombardi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YSA ARM LLC doing business as: Oxygen XL, Case No. 7:22-cv-09294 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. YSA ARM LLC doing business as Oxygen XL -- https://oxygenxl.com/ -- is a debt collection agency in Spring Valley, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Allowed Leave to Amend Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Joseph Metcalf v. Yusen Logistics (Americas), Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05912-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend but only to the extent discussed at the October 13, 2022 hearing. Additionally, it would grant the Plaintiff's request to extend the class certification deadlines by 60 days. Yusen Logistics is a leading global provider of International Freight Forwarding, Contract Logistics, and Supply Chain Solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h4OaWv at no extra charge.[CC] ZIGNEGO CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Cardenas Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISON CARDENAS, v. ZIGNEGO CO., INC., Case No. 22-cv-961-pp (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an scheduling order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange their December 2, 2022 Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by the end of the day on: -- The Parties wishing to amend December 2, 2022 pleadings or join parties without leave of the court shall do so no later than the end of the day on: -- The plaintiff's motion for April 28, 2023 conditional certification for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) shall be filed by the end of the day on: -- The plaintiff's motion for Rule October 31, 2023 23 class certification and the defendant's motion to decertify any conditionally certified FLSA class shall be filed by the end of the day on: -- The plaintiff shall disclose the October 31, 2023 identities of expert witnesses along with reports and supporting documentation, no later than the end of the day on: -- The defendant shall disclose January 5, 2024 the identities of expert witnesses, along with reports and supporting documentation, no later than the end of the day on: -- The parties shall complete all March 29, 2024 discovery no later than the end of the day on: -- A party wishing to file April 30, 2024 dispositive motions must do so by the end of the day on: -- The parties shall file a joint April 30, 2024 status report by: The court strongly encourages parties to begin considering settlement early in the case. There are five magistrate judges in the Eastern District -- three active and two recalled -- all of whom are experienced mediators and who are willing and able to conduct a mediation via videoconference. Zignego is a road construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t4kZWr at no extra charge.[CC] ZORBX INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZorbX, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZorbX, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09332-RA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zorbx -- https://zorbx.com/ -- is an unscented, non-toxic, and biodegradable odor eliminator strong enough to tackle skunk and gasoline but is safe for people, pets and plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zucker's Bagels Grand Central, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zucker's Bagels Grand Central, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06620 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zucker's Bagels Grand Central -- https://www.zuckersbagels.com/ -- is a bagel shop, a snug stop for hand-rolled bagels with smoked fish & cream cheese toppings, plus coffee & sandwiches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ********* 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 ***