/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 5, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 236 Headlines ACADIA PHARMA: Shareholder Suit in California Court Dismissed ADVANCE AUTO: $49.3 Securities Class Suit Settlement Deal OK'd AETNA LIFE: Court Partly Reconsiders Class Cert Order in Wolff Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time to Submit Basis for Sealing Docs Extended AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Akerley Claims AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Galeas Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: CRS Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Suit Over Colcrys(R) to Begin Feb. 2023 APPHARVEST INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending APPLE INC: Modification of Case Management Schedule Sought ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Murphy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ATHENEX INC: Faces NY Securities Class Suit AUTOMATED RECOVERY: Court Won't Abstain From Hearing Hawkes Suit AXOGEN INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Einhorn Class Suit B.P. EXPLORATION: Claims in Bland B3 Suit Dismissed With Prejudice BATH & BODY: Perez, Brooks Seek Extension to File Class Status Bid BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Krieger Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri BEIERSDORF INC: Ballotti Sues Over False & Misleading Labeling BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Cortez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Seeks Time Extension to Reply to Class Cert Bid BROKERS DATA: Fourth Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Fitzhenry BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Gilbert Class Suit Pending in Delaware CAFE ROYALE: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Loses Class Certification Bid CARBEN CONSTRUCTION: Aguilar Seeks Manual Workers' Unpaid Overtime CAREDX INC: Faces Policemen's Pension Fund Shareholder Suit CARVANA LLC: Deceptively Markets Used Vehicles, Suit Alleges CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Krasner Preferred Stock Class Suit Ongoing CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Sydney Putative Class Suit Ongoing CERES TACTICAL: Alaska Electrical Pension Suit Deal OK'd CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Approves Settlement in Hawkes Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: Plaintiffs in Crago Files Renewed Class Action Bid CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: Cibran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime CLEAR HEALTH: Starling Files Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Federal Class Suit in Texas CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Shareholder Suit in California Court Ongoing CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CORSAIR MEMORY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CVS HEALTH: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits EL TAQUITO CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zamora Suit Claims ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: Case Management Order Entered in Newman Suit EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Hardy Putative Class Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Cline Class Action EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Faces Brach Family Foundation Class Suit EXELON CORPORATION: Suits Over Violation of Racketeering Laws Nixed FANNIE MAE: Judge Declares Senior Preferred Stock Suits Mistrial FIFTH BANCORP: Christakis Putative Class Suit Concluded FIFTH BANCORP: Discovery Ongoing in Fox Putative Shareholder Suit FIFTH BANCORP: Klopfenstein Trial Set for April 2023 FIFTH BANCORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Helton FIFTH THIRD: Visa/MasterCard Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing FLAGGE CONTRACTING: Sarmiento et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Durbin Seeks Conditional Class Certification FRED MEYER: New Payroll System Caused Pay Error, Woody Alleges GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Three Stockholder Derivative Suits GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Voluntary Work Program Class Suit GEO GROUP: Court Junks DeLoach, Oketola Class Suit GEO GROUP: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Immigration Detainees GLOBE LIFE: Berry Collective Suit Dismissed HAEMONETICS CORP: Continues to Defend Crumpton Putative Class Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Class & Derivative Suits Temporary Stay Extended HALLMARK CARDS: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook, Cantu Says HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hanna Claims ISS FACILITY: Court Junks Garcia's Bid for Class Certification KEYSTONE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Nickey Suit Says KRAFT HEINZ: Ramirez Sues Over Mislabeled Mac & Cheese Products KROGER CO: Fails to Properly & Timely Pay Wages, Wilder Claims LABORATORY CORP: Tabai Sues Over Untimely Debt Collection Practices LEPRINO FOODS: Class Action Scheduling Order Entered in Dominguez LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shafer/Cohen Suit Pending in Col. LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit on Jan. 6 MARATHON OIL: Settlement in Principle Reached in Suit Over Royalty MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit MATRIX ABSENCE: Court Decertifies Weeks Collective Action MERCEDES BENZ: Class Certification Deadlines Vacated in Hazdovac NASHVILLE, TN: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Harris Suit NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Discriminates Non-White Applicants, Myers Says NEW YORK, NY: Certification of Classes in Local 3621 v. FDNY Denied ORBIT FURNITURE: Underpays Manual Workers, Anderson Suit Claims ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in Israeli Court PAPARAZZI LLC: Court Junks Bids to Consolidate End Consumer Cases PEABODY ENERGY: Court Initially OKs Settlement in OFPRS SEC Suit PETROCHEM INSULATION: Class Status Deadline Extended in Boyuk PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Basher-Asher Putative Suit PRACTICE RESOURCES: Stewart & Bachura Data Breach Suits Combined PRAMUKH 113: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Portillo Suit Claims ROYAL BEAUTY: Aguiar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation SAKS & COMPANY: Settlement in Alexander Suit Wins Final Nod SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Faces Lam Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme Fraud SC & BP SERVICES: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' Minimum & OT Wages SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hoffower's IRPA Class Suit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Denies Fleming's Class Certification Bid SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming Loses Class Certification Bid SEMINOLE ASPHALT: Underpays Manual Workers, Willis et al. Claim SLEEP NUMBER: Bid to Dismiss Steamfitters Suit Pending in MN Court SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consumer Claims Subject to Arbitration SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Discovery Commences in 7 Class Suits SNAP INC: Dembrowsk Suit Seeks to Invalidate Charter Amendment SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Wasa Securities Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Revision of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought STATE FARM: Amended Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Nichols STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Price SUNRISE CREDIT: Munoz Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letters SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Strike Ward Renewed Class Cert Bid SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Suspend Class Cert. Bid Briefing SYNGENTA CROP: Monopolizes Crop Products, Shelby Farms Alleges TEVA PHARMA: Court Amends Class Cert. Schedule in Halman Suit TIOGA DOWNS: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Potter UNILEVER UNITED: Shampoo, Foam Products Contain Benzene, Suit Says UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Li Class Action UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Extension for Summary Judgment Filing Junked USAA SERVICES: Court Extends Class Status-Related Deadlines VAIL RESORTS: Court Recommends Denial of Quint Class Cert Bid VALLEY SERVICING: Broussard Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices VISA INC: Challenges Jurisdiction in Israeli Interchange Fees Suit VISA INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suits VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Suit Pending VISA INC: Settlement in Consumer Class Suit Gets Final Nod WALMART INC: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Feb. 6, 2023 WASH PLUS: Underpays Car Wash Machine Technicians, Mendez Claims WATERWIPES USA: Baby Wipes Not Biodegradable, Pace Suit Alleges WEXFORD HEALTH: Solis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages WHEATLEIGH CORP: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Granted in Part WHEATLEIGH CORP: Mongue's Bid to Enforce Settlement Agreement OK'd WOOD GROUP: Parties File Scheduling & Discovery Plans in Iannotti ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Faces Suits in NV Court Over Deposit Fees ********* ACADIA PHARMA: Shareholder Suit in California Court Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that the class action lawsuit against the company was dismissed with prejudice in January 2022. On February 7, 2020, a purported stockholder of the company filed a derivative complaint in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of California against the company's directors and certain of the company's current and former executive officers. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations similar to those in the related federal securities class action captioned "In re Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 18-cv-01647. On January 15, 2021, the court consolidated the case, together with a second complaint that had been filed in the District of Delaware and subsequently transferred to the Southern District of California, under the name "In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," Case No. 20-cv-0238 and appointed lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The consolidated derivative case was stayed until the resolution of the related federal securities class action. The federal securities class action was dismissed with prejudice on January 3, 2022, and the deadline to appeal that dismissal expired on February 2, 2022. On March 21, 2022, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the derivative action. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in California. ADVANCE AUTO: $49.3 Securities Class Suit Settlement Deal OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 8, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2022, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has given final approval of the $49.3 million settlement agreement in a securities suit. On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of our securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the and certain of the company's current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 7, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss. On November 6, 2020, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 15, 2021, the company moved for reconsideration of the order denying in part our motion to dismiss, and on October 15, 2021, the company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking full dismissal of the case. Following mediation, on November 5, 2021, the parties executed a confidential binding term sheet to settle all claims and on December 23, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement fully documenting their agreement. The settlement agreement received final approval from the court on June 13, 2022. The settlement amount of $49.3 million was fully paid by the insurance carriers. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and its subsidiaries is an automotive aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both professional installers and "do-it-yourself" customers. AETNA LIFE: Court Partly Reconsiders Class Cert Order in Wolff Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE WOLFF, individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01596-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting in part and denying in part Aetna's motion for reconsideration. The Court determined that Wolff had satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. As to numerosity, the Court concluded that there are at least 48 individuals who qualify for the class, which is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected Aetna's assertion that variations in plan language meant that certain individuals would not qualify for the class. Specifically, the Court found that the "Other Income Benefits" language from the various plans were substantially similar, and any variations were not determinative of any claims and therefore did not prevent certification. Although one plan contained broad language that could theoretically encompass personal injury settlements, the Court expressed significant doubt that the language actually encompassed such settlements. The Court will therefore amend the class definition in line with this compromise, which Aetna acknowledges "would help resolve the fail-safe nature of the current class definition." Therefore, Aetna's motion for reconsideration will be granted to the limited extent that the Court will amend the class definition. In 2020, Joanne Wolff, on behalf of herself on all similarly situated individuals, filed a second amended complaint against Aetna raising claims for: a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, breaches of fiduciary duties, conversion, money had and received, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, theft by deception, attempted theft, a violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Wolff originally filed this action in Pennsylvania state court on August 8, 2019, and the action was later removed to federal court by Aetna. In September 2015, Wolff was temporarily disabled as a result of a motor vehicle accident that caused Wolff injuries. Wolff submitted a claim to Aetna under the Plan and received long-term disability benefits exceeding $50,000. Wolff separately filed a civil action against the other party involved in the accident. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EI1zfuat no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time to Submit Basis for Sealing Docs Extended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order granting the parties' request for an extension of time for the designating parties to submit their basis for sealing as to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. -- The Defendants and third-party Dec. 2, 2022 CCC Intelligent Solutions may file their letters in support of sealing portions of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification and the accompanying exhibits by: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Electronically File Document under Seal, related to exhibits 8, 50, and 51 is also granted, in substance, but Plaintiff is respectfully directed not to file the proposed exhibits forthwith. The nature of suit states Torts Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage. Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967.[CC] AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Akerley Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS AKERLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06960 (E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2015 to 2017 as an Operations Associate at a World Courier location in New Hyde Park, New York. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Operations Associates on a timely basis as required by NYLL. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly basis throughout the entirety of their employment with the Defendant. As a result, they were injured because they were temporarily deprived of money owed to them, and they could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully theirs, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Operations Associates, the Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendant for an order declaring the Defendant's conduct violated the law, for liquidated damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, and for an order awarding them reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of suit. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is a drug wholesale company that provides drug distribution and consulting related to medical business operations and patient services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Galeas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the court approved the parties' settlement agreement in the case captioned-case Galeas v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On July 27, 2021, Cesy Galeas filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that the payment schedule for certain workers violated New York Labor Law. Specifically, the purported class, which presently consists of one named plaintiff contends that the Company paid the employees all owed wages, but did so bi-weekly, instead of weekly. In March 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle the claims for $1.2 million, subject to, among other things, court approval of the contemplated settlement agreement. The parties filed a motion to approve the settlement agreement on July 13, 2022 and the Court granted the same on September 28, 2022. A third-party administrator will now begin the process of notifying class members with instructions on how to submit claims. The Company recorded a $1.2 million charge associated with this matter for the nine months ended September 30, 2022. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: CRS Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the settlement in the captioned-case Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19, got final court approval. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018, amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2020, and in April 2021 filed a second amended complaint including similar allegations regarding a November 2017 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination. In February 2022, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the claims, subject to, among other things, the negotiation and court approval of a definitive settlement agreement. On March 28, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $25.0 million. On April 29, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On August 16, 2022, the court gave final approval to the settlement. For the nine months ended September 30, 2022, the Company recorded insurance recoveries of $15.5 million related to this case. The final settlement for $25.0 million was paid from an escrow account which was funded both by insurance recoveries of $15.5 million and cash paid by the Company of $9.5 million (refer to Note 17. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets for amounts deposited into a settlement escrow account). Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Suit Over Colcrys(R) to Begin Feb. 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that trial is scheduled to begin in February 2023 in the case captioned Value Drug Company v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. On August 5, 2021, Value Drug Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. ("Takeda") and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda's Colcrys(R) (colchicine), including Amneal, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. The Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and on December 28, 2021, the Court granted the motion in full, with leave to amend. On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, making substantively the same antitrust allegations, but alleging that the violations were effectuated by either a single overarching conspiracy or a series of bilateral conspiracies. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 30, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in party defendants' motion, dismissing the newly pled bilateral conspiracy claims but allowing the revised overarching conspiracy claim to proceed against all defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on September 6, 2022, and the defendants opposed it on September 21, 2022. That motion remains pending, and discovery is ongoing. Trial is scheduled to begin in February 2023. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. APPHARVEST INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- AppHarvest, 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 a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action in New York is pending. On September 24, 2021, the first of two federal securities class action lawsuits (captioned Ragan v. AppHarvest, Inc.) was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a proposed class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 2021. On December 13, 2021, the court consolidated the two cases, and appointed a lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on March 2, 2022. The amended complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Common Stock between February 1, 2021 to August 10, 2021. The amended complaint names the Company and certain of its current officers as defendants, and alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations at the Morehead CEA Facility in the first half of 2021. In particular, plaintiffs allege that defendants' public statements during the class period were false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose issues related to the Company's tomato harvest and employee training and retention. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2022, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On September 23, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. AppHarvest, Inc. is an American food production company developing and operating indoor farms in Appalachia. The company operates a 60-acre tomato farm in Morehead, Kentucky, with plans to operate an additional 3 farms across Kentucky. APPLE INC: Modification of Case Management Schedule Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUMIKO LOPEZ, FUMIKO LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor, LISHOMWA HENRY, JOSEPH HARMS, JOHN TROY PAPPAS, and DAVID YACUBIAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate that the following case management deadlines be modified as as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadlines Deadlines Plaintiffs' Deadline Nov. 18, 2022 July 21, 2023 to Serve Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification: Motion for Class Jan. 13, 2023 Aug. 4, 2023 Certification: Apple's Deadline to Serve Jan. 27, 2023 Sept.22, 2023 Expert Reports in Opposition to Class Certification: Opposition to Motion Feb. 24, 2023 Oct. 3, 2023 for Class Certification: Plaintiffs' Reply in Mar. 24, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 Support of Class Certification and Deadline to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports, if any: Last Day to Complete Oct. 20, 2023 Mediation: On November 2, 2021, this Court entered an order setting various class certification-related deadlines. The Parties, through their respective counsel, have met and conferred regarding the deadlines in the existing case schedule and an appropriate extension of those deadlines to address pending and anticipated discovery, expert disclosures, class certification, private mediation, and other potential motions. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States. Wikipedia A copy of the Parties' motion from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GOZzEUat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin Green Comite, Esq. Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169-1820 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Hal D. Cunningham, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com hcunningham@scott-scott.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com afarah@lowey.com - and - Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Eric S. Somers, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Isabelle L. Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com - and - Raj N. Shah, Esq. Eric M. Roberts, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606-0089 Telephone: (312) 368-4000 Facsimile: (312) 236-7516 E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com eric.roberts@dlapiper.com ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Murphy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Murphy, Kerry Murphy, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Rockville Centre, Respondents, Case No. 616409/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 25, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Rockville Centre -- https://www.rvcny.gov/ -- commonly abbreviated as RVC, is an incorporated village located in the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ATHENEX INC: Faces NY Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------- Athenex, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District court for the Western District of New York on March 3, 2021 and March 22, 2021, respectively, against the company and certain members of its management team seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints generally allege that between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021 (the purported class period), the company and the individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business in connection with the company's development of Oral Paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and the likelihood of FDA approval, and that the plaintiffs suffered losses when the company's stock price dropped after its announcement on February 26, 2021 regarding receipt of the CRL. The complaints seek class certification, damages, fees, costs, and expenses. On August 5, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 19, 2021. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on January 25, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion on March 28, 2022 and the defendants filed their reply brief on May 20, 2022. The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and awaits the court's decision. Athenex, Inc. biopharmaceutical company based in New York. AUTOMATED RECOVERY: Court Won't Abstain From Hearing Hawkes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: AUTOMATED RECOVERY SYSTEMS OF NEW MEXICO, INC., Debtor. MITCHELL AND VICTORIA HAWKES, Plaintiffs v. AUTOMATED RECOVERY SYSTEMS OF NEW MEXICO, INC., SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., AND SAN JUAN HEALTH PARTNERS INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-10225, Adv. No. 22-1018 (D.N.M.), Judge David T. Thuma of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico denies the Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to abstain from hearing the adversary proceeding and to remand it. On Jan. 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Mitchell and Victoria Hawkes ("Creditors"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against San Juan Regional Medical Center, Inc., San Juan Health Partners, Inc. (together, the "San Juan Defendants") and Automated Recovery Systems of New Mexico, Inc. ("Debtor"). The complaint was initiated (Case No. D-1116-CV-2021-00513) in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico. In the action, the Creditors alleged that the Debtor had filed hundreds of debt collection lawsuits in its own name, even though it did not own the claims. The alleged that doing so constituted the unauthorized practice of law, citing Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 521 (S. Ct. 1973). The Creditors' amended complaint seeks money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. If the Creditors were awarded all requested relief, the Debtor's main valuable asset (about 1,500 collection judgments against multiple debtors, scheduled at $10 million) would be worthless and the Defendants would owe a lot of money to the Creditors and the class claimants. The Debtor moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its actions and procedures were entirely lawful and in accordance with a New Mexico statute and a rule of civil procedure for the New Mexico magistrate courts, where all of the judgments were obtained. On Nov. 3, 2021, the state court judge denied the motion to dismiss. The Debtor filed this chapter 11 case on March 23, 2022. On May 16, 2022, the Creditors filed a motion to apply Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7023 to the claims allowance process, to set a schedule for certifying class claims, and for an extension of time to file an individual and/or class proof of claim (the "Class Claim Motion"). The Court entered a stipulated order on June 6, 2022, which, inter alia, vacated the bar date for the Creditors and other potential class members. The parties mediated their disputes on July 28, 2022. No settlement was reached. The Creditors withdrew the Class Claim Motion on Aug. 17, 2022. Twelve days later, the Debtor removed this proceeding to the bankruptcy court. The Creditors filed the motion for abstention and remand on Sept. 12, 2022. The San Juan Defendants and the Debtor oppose the motion. On Oct. 28, 2022, the Debtor filed its own motion to set a class claim certification hearing and a bar date for the Creditors and other class members. A preliminary hearing on that motion is scheduled for Dec. 12, 2022. The Debtor concedes the presence of all mandatory abstention elements except element #5 ("the claim is within the court's non-core jurisdiction"). It argues that the Creditors' claims against it are core. Judge Thuma finds and concludes that adjudicating the Creditors' claims against the Debtor, as asserted in this proceeding, is within the Court's core jurisdiction. Mandatory abstention therefore is neither required nor permitted. He also concludes that mandatory abstention does not apply to the Creditors' claims against the San Juan Defendants. The claims are non-core and come within the Court's "related to" jurisdiction under Section 1334(b). Thus, element #5 of the mandatory abstention elements is present with respect to the claims. Finally, Judge Thuma finds and concludes that permissive abstention is not indicated. The Creditors' claims against the Debtor are core and need to be adjudicated as soon as practicable in this subchapter V case. The Court has time to hear the claims. The outcome of the legal dispute is "do or die" for the Debtor. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims and should do so as part of its job. The reasons to keep the claims against the San Juan Defendants are almost as compelling because they cannot be split from the claims against the Debtor. All counts in the Creditors' amended complaint are brought against all three defendants jointly and severally. As the Court has decided to keep some of the claims, it only makes sense to keep them all. For these reasons, mandatory abstention is not required for any of the Creditors' claims, and Judge Thuman elects not to abstain under Section 1334(c)(1). She denies the motion by separate order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mth5pb6r from Leagle.com. AXOGEN INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Einhorn Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Axogen 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 8, 2022, that the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Einhorn putative class suit Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers ("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's November 2017 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2) that the Company’s pricing alienated customers and threatened the Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating metrics, such as the number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019, and stayed all deadlines regarding the parties' obligations to file a case management report. On December 4, 2019, the parties presented oral arguments. On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on June 22, 2020. Axogen filed a motion to dismiss on August 6, 2020. The Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 20, 2020. The Court held oral argument on February 25, 2021. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding again that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff filed its opening brief on June 28, 2021. The Company filed its appellee brief on August 11, 2021. The Plaintiff filed a reply brief on September 14, 2021. The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument the week of March 8, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries, and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua, Florida. B.P. EXPLORATION: Claims in Bland B3 Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DARAY RASHON BLAND v. B.P. EXPLORATION & SECTION "R" (4) PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-3049 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants the motions to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and for summary judgment filed by BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c. b. denies the Plaintiffs' motion seeking admission of Dr. Cook's testimony as a sanction for BP's failure to conduct biomonitoring and dermal monitoring. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he performed cleanup work after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill beginning on April 20, 2010, until March of 2012. The Plaintiff asserts that he experienced continuous, personal, direct exposure to crude oil and dispersants at various times from April 2010 to March 2012 in the areas including, but not limited to: beaches from Moss Point to Bay St. Louis, MS; Horn Island, Cat Island, East and West Ship Island, and Petit Bois Island, MS. He also represents that this exposure has resulted in the following conditions: abdominal pains, internal bleeding, chronic nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, cough, upper respiratory infection, bronchitis, shortness of breath, chest pain, left arm pain, and chronic dental pains. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Bland is a plaintiff who opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. He concludes that general causation analysis indicates that the following conditions, among others, can occur in individuals exposed to crude oil, including weathered crude oil: rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, asthma, dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and dry eye disease. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, and filed a motion seeking admission of Dr. Cook's opinion as a sanction for BP's alleged spoliation of evidence. Judge Vance first examines the BP Parties' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. She finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Judge Vance concludes that the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, she grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. With respect to the Plaintiff's spoliation motion, Judge Vance denies it. She finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion is fatally flawed for a number of reasons. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation, is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Furthermore, he has not established that BP had a duty to conduct monitoring during the Deepwater Horizon cleanup effort. Further, the Plaintiff lacks any evidence that BP acted in bad faith. Lastly, the remedy sought by BP -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is wholly unwarranted. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Because Judge Vance excludes Dr. Cook's opinion on general causation, and the Plaintiff has produced no other admissible general causation evidence, she says she need not reach the question of specific causation. Accordingly, she grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hehjx73 from Leagle.com. BATH & BODY: Perez, Brooks Seek Extension to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN PEREZ and ANDREA BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC and L BRANDS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-05606-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff files an administrative motion for relief from the Court's current Dec. 2, 2022, deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, with a request to continue that deadline to 180 days after the filing of Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or other responsive pleading. The Defendant has indicated it will not oppose this motion. Plaintiff brings this motion to resolve a conflict in the current scheduling order. The Court originally set December 2, 2022 as the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Bath & Body Works is an American retail store chain that sells soaps, lotions, fragrances, and candles A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U8BKuDat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Anthony Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Krieger Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Mark Krieger and Krieger Family Farms, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; AND TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 2:22-CV-00499 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01261 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Bayer CropScience -- https://www.bayer.com/en/us/crop-science -- operates as a crop science company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Watkins, Esq. GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC 805 Lake Street #226 Oak Park, IL 60301 Phone: (312) 878-8391 Email: charlesw@gseattorneys.com - and - David J. Guin, Esq. Tammy M. Stokes, Esq. GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC 300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N. Title Building, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 226-2282 Email: davidg@gseattorneys.com tammys@gseattorneys.com BEIERSDORF INC: Ballotti Sues Over False & Misleading Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Ballotti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beiersdorf, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-50408 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 27, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its suntan lotion described as "Pure & Simple" "With Nourishing Botanicals" under the Coppertone brand ("Product"). Consumers value personal care products consisting of pure and simple ingredients, believing they are better for their bodies and the environment. Products described with these terms are growing twice the rate of traditional cosmetics, with studies showing consumers will pay higher prices for them. Consumers viewing the labeling of "Pure & Simple" in green font, blue leaves next to "50," and reference to botanical ingredients, will expect the Product's ingredients are only and/or predominantly not mixed with other substances and materials and not significantly modified from their original state. However, no less than seventeen of its twenty-four ingredients are neither pure nor simple, because they are made by mixing with other substances and materials and significantly modified from their original state. Though its active ingredient of zinc oxide occurs in the mineral zincite, this version is not used commercially. Instead, the zinc oxide in the Product is made through synthetic means involving the high-temperature oxidation of metallic zinc or zinc ores. The result is an ingredient which is no longer pure or simple. Of the inactive ingredients, at least sixteen are made through mixing with other substances and materials and are heavily modified. Or material. Cyclopentasiloxane, dimethicone, PEG-12 dimethicone crosspolymer, and cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone are silicones, which are synthetic polymers. These silicone ingredients are created through intense processing and chemical reactions. Butyloctyl salicylate, C12-15 alkyl benzoate, isopropyl palmitate, ethylhexyl methoxycrylene and ethylhexyl isononanoate are synthetic esters. Synthetic esters are made from carboxylic acids and alcohols, through chemical processing. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions which are false and misleading. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $9.99 for 6 oz, 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 purchased the Product at locations including Walmart in Dixon, Illinois. Beiersdorf, Inc. is one of the largest sellers of personal care products in the world, known for its sunscreen brands.[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 BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Cortez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Silvia Cortez, Kayla Drevenak, Amanda Edwards, Susan Ferryman, Taylor Grose, Katherine Hulsey, Sandra Hundley, Dee R. Iglehart, Amy Jenkins, Stormy Linger, Crystal Linger, Justin Mieir, Lisa Mikec, Brian O’connor, Kelly Rogers, Loushandra Vaughn, and Brittney Wood, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACKHAWK NETWORK, INC., dba BLACKHAWK ENGAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, Case No. 4:22-cv-07492-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 28, 2022), is brought arising out of the recent data breach involving Blackhawk Network, Inc., which offers branded payment programs, including prepaid gift cards, to customers, and against the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") Blackhawk acts as a third-party service provider on behalf of Pathward N.A. Pathward uses Blackhawk to activate and manage certain prepaid cards referred to as Pathward Prepaid Cards. Blackhawk operates the website https://www.MyPrepaidCenter.com ("MyPrepaidCenter.com") on behalf of Prepaid Card holders to activate and manage Pathward issued Prepaid Cards. To activate and use Prepaid Cards, Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide certain sensitive, non-public information to Defendant by entering their information on MyPrepaidCenter.com. Unfortunately, Blackhawk failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information provided by customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, that appeared on the MyPrepaidCenter.com profile, including, without limitation, their unencrypted and unredacted first and last names, email addresses, phone numbers ("PII"), their payment card data in combination with information "related to the Prepaid Card profiles," which included, but was not limited to, information added by customers to PrepaidCenter.com, such as card numbers, expiration dates, and CVV security codes ("PCD") and other sensitive information (collectively with PII and PCD, "Private Information"). This Data Breach was engineered and targeted at accessing and exfiltrating the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members in order for criminals to use that information in furtherance of theft, identity crimes, and fraud. The Defendant's failure to prevent and detect the Data Breach is particularly egregious considering the nature of its business and the Private Information it collected, the myriad data breaches all over the country, and its own experience with a substantially similar data breach described in more detail below. The aggregate information acquired by cybercriminals in this Data Breach is particularly concerning considering that Defendant's customers provided Private Information, which can be used to commit fraud against the Plaintiffs and Class Members as well as steal their identities, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs had Prepaid Cards serviced by Blackhawk on MyPrepaidCenter.com. Blackhawk is primarily engaged in providing "global branded payments" to its customers located within the United States and abroad, which includes gift cards, prepaid cards, other online payment options for employers and merchants, gaming, and gambling options.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Seeks Time Extension to Reply to Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFEREY W. CAMPBELL, v. BOSCO CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, and LOUIS BOSCO, individually, Campbell v. Bosco Contractor Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01146-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the period of time for them to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action, equitably toll the statute of limitations, and facilitate notice to potential members of the collective up to and including December 12, 2022. Bosco is a construction company based in Jackson, Tennesse. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OD8DOQat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan G. Crone, Esq. Philip Oliphant, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Ave., 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey A. Lindley, Esq. Matthew R. Courtner, Esq. RAINEY, KIZER, REVIERE & BELL, P.L.C. 209 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1147 Jackson, TN 38302-1147 Telephone: (731) 423-2414 E-mail: glindley@raineykizer.com mcourtner@raineykizer.com - and - C. Mark Donahoe, Esq. THE DONAHOE FIRM, PLLC 451 S. Highland Ave. Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 736-4422 E-mail: cmd@donahoefirm.com BROKERS DATA: Fourth Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Fitzhenry ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Fitzhenry, v. Brokers Data, Inc.,Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered a fourth amended scheduling order as follows: -- Counsel shall file and serve March 2, 2023 affidavits of records custodian witnesses proposed to be presented by affidavit at trial no later than: -- Discovery shall be completed no March 16, 2023 later than: -- A Motion for Class Certification April 13, 2023 should be filed by: -- Mediation shall be completed in April 20, 2023 this case on or before: Brokers Data specializes in marketing solutions, specialty targeted data and services enabling sales teams and business owners to increase their productivity and return on investment. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VcrnHsat no extra charge.[CC] BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Gilbert Class Suit Pending in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- BurgerFi International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2022, that the Gilbert class suit is pending at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Eric Gilbert v. BurgerFi International, Inc., Ophir Sternberg, et al. (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2022-0185-, filed on February 25, 2022). Mr. Gilbert filed a class action lawsuit against BurgerFi International, Inc. and each of the members of the Board of Directors alleging that the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws improperly contains a provision restricting written consents by the stockholders. Mr. Gilbert sought an amendment to the bylaws, as well as attorney' fees and costs. On March 23, 2022, BurgerFi made conforming amendments to its bylaws to remove the provision restricting written consents by the stockholders. On March 24, 2022, Mr. Gilbert and the Court entered an order voluntarily dismissing the action as moot and retaining jurisdiction to determine Mr. Gilbert's application for award of attorney's fees and expenses. At this stage, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can it reasonably estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. BurgerFi International, Inc. multi-brand restaurant company based in Florida. CAFE ROYALE: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAFE ROYALE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a CAFE ROYALE RESTAURANT, RAMON CUAYA, and JERRY CUAYA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09684 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or about 2010 as a non-exempt dishwasher, food preparer/kitchen helper, stock person, and porter until his employment came to an end in or about November 2021. According to the complaint, the Defendant did not properly pay the Plaintiff's overtime compensation throughout his employment with the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, he was not paid at the statutory rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay as required by state and federal law. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide him with written wage statements upon each pay period detailing his hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and net wages. The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff's "spread of hours" premium for each day that their work shift exceeded 10 hours in a single day. Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient wage and hour records, says the suit. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the available relief what he and other similarly situated manual workers are entitled, specifically all unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours" premium, as well as liquidated damages and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court determines to be just and proper. Cafe Royale Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Cafe Royale Restaurant operates a restaurant co-owned by Ramon Cuaya and Jerry Cuaya. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd St. – 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Loses Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, et al., v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and, in the alternative, motion for reconsideration. To the extent Plaintiffs bring a motion that exceeds the scope of this leave in any material respect, the motion will either be stricken or decided exclusively under a reconsideration standard. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. To summarize, Plaintiffs' motion is properly construed as a motion for reconsideration because it exceeds the scope of leave granted by the Court for a second class-certification motion and Rule 60(b) is the only other basis Plaintiffs provide (or could provide) for bringing the motion. In the Court's view, reconsideration is not warranted because all substantive argument as to reconsideration is made for the first time on reply and regardless, the Plaintiffs make no discernable attempt to show that any reconsideration standards have been satisfied. Assuming the motion could somehow be construed as having been authorized by Court order, the Court finds that there is an unacceptable Rule 23(a)(4) conflict between the proposed class representatives and the all-inclusive class of student-athletes they seek to represent because different sports necessarily compete for limited resources at Fresno State and given the nature of Title IX remedies, one or more women's sports will benefit more than others if Plaintiffs prevail on one or more of their claims. Further, the Court finds that the professed neutrality of the proposed class representatives does resolve the conflict in question or otherwise make class certification appropriate because it does not convincingly offset the disproportionate emphasis on lacrosse in this case to date. California State University is a public university system in California. With 23 campuses and eight off-campus centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F25a9wat no extra charge.[CC] CARBEN CONSTRUCTION: Aguilar Seeks Manual Workers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCISCO LANAU AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. CARBEN CONSTRUCTION INC., RONALD BROWNING, and ANTHONY LOGIUDICE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09685 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2022) challenges the Defendants’ alleged unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a manual worker and carpenter from June 2021 to, through and including December 2021. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Specifically, he worked for a total period of approximately 42.5 to 51 hours during each of the weeks. However, despite working overtime hours, the Defendant did not pay him all of his hours worked. The Defendant denied him of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Accordingly, the Defendants were required to pay prevailing wages to employees working on public works projects, including work in public hospitals, under NY Labor Law Section 220(a). The prevailing wage for "Carpenter" work is generally at least $56.93. and sometimes significantly higher, with supplemental benefits of around the same value. However, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff less than prevailing wages on public works projects. In addition, the Defendants failed to state the correct gross wages for any employee on ay pay statement or deductions from the correct gross wages. Moreover, the Defendants did not post notices regarding their employees' wages, and did not provide them with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover all unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Carben Construction Inc. is a construction company. Ronald Browning and Anthony Logiudice are co-owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com CAREDX INC: Faces Policemen's Pension Fund Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Caredx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that the court appointed an investor group led by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White and Robbins Geller as lead counsel and entered a schedule in September 2022. On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California against the company, Reginald Seeto, its President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the company's Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board and current member of the company's Board of Directors. The action alleges that the company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the company. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs. On August 25, 2022, the court appointed an investor group led by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White and Robbins Geller as lead counsel. On September 12, 2022, the court entered a schedule pursuant to which Plaintiffs' amended complaint is due on November 11, 2022; Defendants' motion to dismiss is due on January 10, 2023; Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on February 24, 2023; and Defendants' reply is due on March 26, 2023. CareDx, Inc. is a leading precision medicine company based in California. CARVANA LLC: Deceptively Markets Used Vehicles, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MOUNTAINEER MOTORS OF LENOIR, LLC, D/B/A, CAR GUYS MOUNTAINEER MOTORS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CARVANA, LLC; CARVANA & COMPANY; CARVANA CARS, LLC; CARVANA AND COMPANY OF NC LLC; CARVANA FAC LLC; CARVANA LOGISTICS LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Case No. 5:22-cv-00171 (W.D.N.C., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendant engages in false and deceptive marketing practices by advertising through different platforms used vehicles for sale from fictitious and unlicensed locations and by selling used vehicles without holding their titles or disclosing this critical information to the purchaser in violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the North Carolina Common Law, the Federal Lanham Act, and the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Laws. Carvana engages in unfair competition and misappropriates a commercial advantage by falsely advertising to the consuming public that they have units available within towns like Hickory and across North Carolina and the entire United States, where they do not have a licensed dealership and without disclosing that Carvana may have those units in some other location, county, city, or even on another state, the Plaintiffs say. Carvana also advertises used vehicles for sale that third parties own, without disclosing this critical factor to potential customers. Through these deceptive actions, the Defendants have lured away customers and potential customers from the Plaintiff and class members, causing them losses and harm, while Defendant unfairly gains market advantage, added the Plaintiffs. Carvana has and continues to use "virtual addresses" to appear to have a presence in more markets than it truly has a legitimate presence in. Carvana falsely advertises it has the exact model the client wants available at close proximity. In truth, the vehicle is regularly located in another county, city, or even out of state and/or without the proper papers necessary to reasonably transfer the title to a new owner. Based on these misrepresentations by Carvana, consumers were led to make purchasing decisions with Carvana and away from Plaintiff's business, thereby causing Plaintiff and Class Members harm, the suit further alleges. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nevin Wisnoski, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Facsimile: (888) 870-2757 E-mail: nwisnoski@napolilaw.com - and - Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 400 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 E-mail: sbadala@napolilaw.com - and - Rebeca Martinez Sicari, Esq. Maria Nery, Esq. Jesus Fernandez, Esq. Arturo Gigante, Esq. NS PR LAW SERVICES, LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Telephone: (787) 493-5088 CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Krasner Preferred Stock Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Realty Trust 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 8, 2022, that the Krasner Preferred Stock class suit is ongoing at the Nassau County Supreme Court. On October 14, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action against the Company, the Board, and Wheeler in Nassau County Supreme Court entitled Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., (Case No. 613985/2022). The complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the Board, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Wheeler. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and expert fees. Defendants' deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint is November 18, 2022. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is into real estate investment trusts based in New York. CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Sydney Putative Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Cedar Realty Trust 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 8, 2022, that the Sydney Putative class suit is ongoing at the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On April 8, 2022, several purported holders of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, the Board, and Wheeler in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland entitled Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., (Case No. C-15-CV-22-001527). The original complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the Board, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Wheeler. The original complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that holders of the Company's preferred stock are entitled to a liquidation preference as set forth in the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock, compensatory damages, and an injunction enjoining the merger with Wheeler, and an injunction enjoining the distribution to the Company's common shareholders of the proceeds of any of the Transactions pending a determination of the merits of plaintiffs' claims. On May 6, 2022, plaintiffs in the Sydney action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the Board, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty, and, against Wheeler, tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The Sydney amended complaint sought, among other things, (i) a declaration that holders of the Company's preferred stock are entitled to exercise either their liquidation rights or conversion rights as set forth in the articles supplementary, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) an injunction enjoining the distribution to the Company's common shareholders of the proceeds of the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale, and (iv) an injunction enjoining the merger with Wheeler. On May 6, 2022, the plaintiffs in Sydney filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily enjoin, until the final resolution of the litigation (i) the distribution of the gross proceeds from the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale to the common stockholders, (ii) the closing of the merger with Wheeler, and (iii) the imposition of a constructive trust over the gross proceeds from both the Grocery Anchored Portfolio Sale and the merger with Wheeler. Also on May, 6, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled Kim v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-01103. The original complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty. On May 11, 2022, the Company, the Board of Directors of the Company and Wheeler removed the Sydney action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 8:22-cv-01142-GLR. On May 16, 2022, the court ordered that a hearing on the Sydney plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction will be held on June 22, 2022. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs in Kim filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (i) to require that the Company provide preferred shareholders with a vote to approve the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and the Merger, and (ii) requiring Cedar disclose to preferred shareholders that the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and Merger entitled the preferred stockholders to exercise their change of control conversion right. The court agreed to consolidate the Kim plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with the Sydney plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, and to hear arguments on both motions at the hearing on June 22, 2022. On June 23, 2022, following a hearing on both the Sydney and Kim motions for preliminary injunction, the court issued an order denying both motions for preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs in both cases were unlikely to succeed on the merits of any of their contractual or fiduciary duty claims, and that plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied. By order dated July 11, 2022, the Court consolidated the Sydney and Kim cases and set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the plaintiffs in both cases to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2022, and, on October 7, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is into real estate investment trusts based in New York. CERES TACTICAL: Alaska Electrical Pension Suit Deal OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Tactical Systematic LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the court approved final settlement of the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund class suit on June 16, 2020. Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a series of putative class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the SDNY, the first of which is styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al. Each complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The purported class period for each suit is from January 1, 2012 to June 1, 2018. Each complaint raised a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and treble compensatory damages. On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016. On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss. Ceres Tactical Systematic L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on December 3, 2002 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures, option, swap and forward contracts. The sectors traded include currencies, energy, grains, indices, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, livestock, metals and softs. CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Approves Settlement in Hawkes Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Delaware Court of Chancery entered final judgment and approved the terms of the settlement in the Hawkes v. Bettino et al Putative Class Suit. On May 12, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit related to the acquisition was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hawkes v. Bettino et al.) on behalf of a proposed class of TD Ameritrade’s stockholders, excluding, among others, TD Bank. On February 5, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming an officer and certain directors of TD Ameritrade at the time the acquisition was approved, as well as TD Bank, certain TD Bank related entities, and Schwab. The amended complaint asserts separate claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the TD Ameritrade officer, certain members of the TD Ameritrade board and TD Bank, and against Schwab for aiding and abetting such breaches, the allegation being that the amendment of the IDA agreement TD Bank negotiated directly with Schwab allowed TD Bank to divert merger consideration from TD Ameritrade's minority public stockholders. Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Schwab and the other defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and on April 29, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 25, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation proposing a settlement of the lawsuit on a class basis. On September 21, 2022, the court entered final judgment and approved the terms of the settlement, under which Schwab will pay an immaterial amount on behalf of the former TD Ameritrade officer and director defendants pursuant to indemnification obligations. The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] CHARLES SCHWAB: Plaintiffs in Crago Files Renewed Class Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the plaintiffs in the Crago Order Routing Suit filed a renewed class action motion. On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and have been vigorously contesting the lawsuit. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30, 2021, and in a decision on October 27, 2021, the court denied the motion and held that certification of a class action is inappropriate. Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class action. The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: Cibran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- AIMEE CIBRAN, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS HIGH SCHOOL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-23736-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover money for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time Administrative Assistant from approximately October 7, 2013 to September 9, 2022. Throughout her employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff worked a total of 55 hours per week without taking bonafide lunch breaks. However, the Defendant denied her of her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid her the same rate regardless of the number of hours she has worked. Moreover, the Defendant pay her on a bi-weekly basis. Consequently, after she complained about the missing payment for overtime hours, she was unfairly fired on or about September 9, 2022, says the suit. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to the FLSA. Christopher Columbus High School, Inc. operates a school. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CLEAR HEALTH: Starling Files Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02938-JMC (D. Maryland, November 14, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and provisions of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent prerecorded telephone calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 6140 beginning on March 1, 2021 in an attempt to promote its health insurance products. The Defendant allegedly used a prerecorded or artificial voice message without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to receive such calls. As a result of the Defendant's unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm in the form of invasion of privacy, nuisance, and lost time tending to and responding to the unsolicited calls. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive and other equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of the Classes prohibiting the Defendant from engaging such unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory and treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief that the Court deems reasonable and just. Clear Health, LLC offers health insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. McGowan, Esq. KINNER & McGOWAN PLLC 413 East Capitol St. SE, First Floor Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 846-7148 E-mail: jmcgowan@kinnermcgowan.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. Eric H. Weitz, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com Eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Federal Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that in July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against Concho, certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District court for the Southern District of Texas. On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs. On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such other relief that may be deemed appropriate. ConocoPhillips is an independent E&P company based in Texas. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Shareholder Suit in California Court Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that a class action complaint filed against the company alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 is still ongoing. Several of the plaintiff's claims have reached the discovery phase. Discovery is expected to close in March of 2023. On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District court for the Northern District of California by Nicholas Melucci captioned "Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al.," Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK). The complaint named the company and certain of its executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the business, operations and prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff withdrew its consolidated complaint and filed a second amended complaint. On May 11, 2020, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On November 20, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, while granting plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint, which plaintiff did on December 21, 2020. On February 19, 2021, the company moved to dismiss this third amended complaint. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the company's motion on April 20, 2021 and filed its reply on June 4, 2021. On August 24, 2021, the court granted the company's motion in part, but also denied it in part. Certain of plaintiff's claims have proceeded to discovery. Discovery is currently scheduled to close in March 2023. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated is a commercial-stage company engaged in the discovery and development of drugs based in California. CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- KAWANA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09744 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking recovery pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a dispatcher and driver from on or around February 2022 to, through and including July 2022. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated dispatchers and drivers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant did not provide them with any wage statement and with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. Moreover, the Defendant failed to post notices or other means regarding their wages. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay, for herself and all other similarly situated dispatchers and drivers, as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to the total amount of wages found to be due, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Cornucopia Logistics, LLC owns, operates and/or control a logistics company known as "Cornucopia Logistics." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com CORSAIR MEMORY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corsair Memory, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Corsair Memory, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10028 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Corsair Gaming, Inc. -- http://www.corsair.com/-- is an American computer peripherals and hardware company headquartered in Milpitas, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CVS HEALTH: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CECILIA CURRY, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH, an unknown entity; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C., a Rhode Island limited liability company; CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00046692-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking penalties against the Defendant pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act as a result of the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt shift supervisor RX in San Diego, California approximately from on or about October 23, 2021 until on or about April 1, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods and pay the requisite premium wages at the regular rate of pay; -- The Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and -- The Defendants failed to timely pay wages to terminated employees. The Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or about September 12, 2022 concerning the Defendants' violations of the Labor Code, and also sent notice to the Defendants via certified mail. However, the LWDA has not responded to her written notice nor indicated that it intends to investigate the Labor Code violations provided for in the written notice, says the suit. The Corporate Defendants operate retail pharmacies throughout the U.S., including in San Diego County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and – William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito St., Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Kodak Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from several securities class Suits. On August 13, 2020 Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020 Jimmie A. McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York (collectively, the "Securities Class Actions"). The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (the "DFC") announcement (the "DFC Announcement") of the signing of a non-binding letter of interest to provide a subsidiary of the Company with a potential $765 million loan (the "DFC Loan") to support the launch of Kodak Pharmaceuticals, an initiative that would manufacture pharmaceutical ingredients for essential generic drugs (the "DFC Pharmaceutical Project") on July 28, 2020. The Securities Class Actions were transferred to the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York and were consolidated into a single proceeding (the "Consolidated Securities Class Action") on June 22, 2021. Les Investissements Kiz Inc. and UAT Trading Service, Inc. were appointed by the court to serve as lead plaintiff for the Consolidated Securities Class Action on August 2, 2021, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 1, 2021 which added Kodak's General Counsel and current and former members of its Board of Directors as additional defendants. The Company and individual defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Class Action on December 14, 2021. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 28, 2022, and the Company and the individual defendants filed responses to the plaintiff's opposition on April 6, 2022. A hearing with respect to the motion to dismiss was held on August 3, 2022, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on September 28, 2022. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal on October 27, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the Consolidated Securities Class Action. Eastman Kodak Company is a technology company focused on imaging for business. The Company's portfolio of products and services includes transforming large printing markets with digital offset, digital print, and hybrid solutions and developing new solutions for high-growth markets. The Company offers products and services in entertainment imaging and commercial films. EL TAQUITO CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zamora Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSETTE ZAMORA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time and hourly-paid server, cashier and cleaning worker from May 1, 2022 to September 4, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the Defendants, she worked 6 days per week, a minimum average of 49 hours. However, the Defendants paid her for an average of 43 hours only at her regular rate. The remaining 6 off-the-clock hours, were not paid by the Defendants at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived of her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she has worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not provide her with paystub or record showing the number of days and hours worked, job classification, wage rate, tips received, employment taxes withheld, etc. Because the Plaintiff complained about the unpaid off-the-clock overtime hours and refused to pay $550.00 to cover the business' high water bill caused by a water leak, the Defendants fired her. When the Plaintiff picked up her last check on or about September 4, 2022, the Defendants illegally deducted $550.00 from her wages, says the Plaintiff Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay her minimum wages and overtime compensation at the legally mandated overtime rate. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount awarded as consequential damages, all back wages from the date of discharge to the present date, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this suit, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. El Taquito Corp operates a Mexican restaurant and bar owned by Osvaldo Navarro and Angelica Osorio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: Case Management Order Entered in Newman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward G. Newman, Jr., v. Electronic Merchant Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01631-PAG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan entered a case management order as follows: 1. Phase I - Class Certification: -- Deadline to amend pleadings: December 30, 2022 -- Deadline for plaintiff's February 17, 2023 class certification expert reports: -- Class certification fact March 3, 2023 discovery cut-off: -- Deadline for defendant's March 20, 2023 class certification expert reports: -- Class certification expert March 31, 2023 discovery cut-off: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's March 31, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Deadline for Defendant's May 3, 2023 opposition to motion for class certification: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's May 17, 2023 reply in support of motion for class certification: 2. Phase II - Merits -- Discovery cut-off for July 21, 2023 additional fact discovery: -- Deadline for dispositive/ July 24, 2023 summary judgment motion: -- Deadline for plaintiff's July 24, 2023 liability expert reports: -- Deadline for opposition to August 23, 2023 dispositive motion: -- Deadline for defendant's August 30, 2023 liability expert reports: -- Deadline for reply to September 6, 2023 dispositive motion: -- Expert discovery cut-off: September 29, 2022 Electronic Merchant provides easy, efficient, and secure merchant processing services for business owners throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XBDMqgat no extra charge.[CC] EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Hardy Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Embark 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 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from Hardy putative class suit. On April 1, 2022, Tyler Hardy filed, a putative securities class action lawsuit against Embark, certain of our executive officers, and former executive officers of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp., captioned Hardy v. Embark Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02090-JSC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Hardy Action"). Hardy brought the action purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Embark common stock between January 12, 2021 and January 5, 2022. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 7, 2022, the Court appointed Tyler Hardy as lead plaintiff in the case, and his counsel at Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. On August 25, 2022, pursuant to Court-approved stipulation, Plaintiff Hardy filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming an additional plaintiff, Danny Rochefort, and additional individual defendants that formerly served as directors of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. prior to its business combination with Embark. The amended complaint alleges that defendants committed violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act Claims") and Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act Claims") through the inclusion of allegedly inaccurate and misleading statements in the Form S-4 registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the business combination. Plaintiffs do not quantify any damages in the complaint, but in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek to recover damages on behalf of two classes: 1) a class that acquired shares traceable to the registration statement at issue in the Securities Act Claims and 2) a class that voted in favor of the business combination based on the information in the proxy statement/prospectus at issue in the Exchange Act Claims and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. On October 24, 2022 Embark moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 9 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on the grounds that the Amended Complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim against Defendants. Embark intends to defend the matter vigorously, and believes that the claims are without merit. Legal and regulatory proceedings, including the above-referenced matter, may be based on complex claims involving substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Embark develops self-driving software solutions for the trucking industry in the U.S. The Company was originally a SPAC, also called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Cline Class Action ----------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that on July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (ETMT) that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments. Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments, and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for interest accrued from trial. Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. However, on November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the district court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted. Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class is now engaging in asset discovery and is actively trying to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings. ETMT filed a request for an emergency stay of execution to the United States Supreme court, which was denied on September 8, 2022. To stop the garnishment proceedings, on October 11, 2022, ETMT filed an Emergency Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds in the court's Registry in the amount of $161 million, the full amount of the judgment with attorney's fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. The court heard this Motion on October 25, 2022, and ETMT is awaiting the Magistrate Judge's issuance of the report and recommendation to the District court. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme court on April 28, 2022, seeking review of the 10th Circuit's dismissal of ETMT's appeal. The Supreme court denied ETMT's Petition on October 3, 2022. Despite the denial of its Petition for Writ of Certiorari, ETMT is still vigorously appealing the finality issues underlying the Order and has appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. ETMT filed its opening brief with the 10th Circuit on September 13, 2022, and Plaintiff's response was filed on October 13, 2022. ETMT's reply brief is due on November 3, 2022. EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Faces Brach Family Foundation Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Equitable Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that in February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York entitled "Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance company." This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of UL policies subject to Equitable Financial's COI rate increase. In early 2016, Equitable Financial raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2008, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. A second putative class action was filed in the District of Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter in federal court in New York. The consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims. In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision certifying nationwide breach of contract and Section 4226 classes, and a New York State Section 349 class. Owners of a substantial number of policies opted out of the Brach class action. Most opt-out policies are not yet the subject of litigation. Others filed suit previously including three federal actions that have been coordinated with the Brach action and contain similar allegations along with additional allegations for violations of state consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. In March 2022, the federal district court issued a summary judgment decision, denying in significant part but granting in part Equitable Financial's motion and denying the motion filed by plaintiffs in the coordinated actions. In July 2022, the federal district court granted Equitable Financial's motion to reconsider its summary judgment decision in part and granted summary judgment as to a portion of the Section 4226 class. The federal district court also agreed to consider whether it should decertify the Section 4226 class and set a briefing schedule. Equitable Financial has commenced settlement discussions with the Brach class action plaintiffs and plaintiffs in the coordinated actions. No assurances can be given about the outcome of those settlement discussions. Equitable Financial has settled actual and threatened litigations challenging the COI increase by individual policy-owners and one entity that invested in numerous policies purchased in the life settlement market. Two actions are also pending against Equitable Financial in New York state court. In July 2022, the trial court in one of the New York state court actions, Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance company, granted in significant part Equitable Financial's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross motion. That plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and Equitable filed a notice of cross-appeal. Equitable Holdings, Inc.is a financial services company based in New York. EXELON CORPORATION: Suits Over Violation of Racketeering Laws Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that four putative class action lawsuits against it and its subsidiary Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) were filed in federal court on behalf of ComEd customers in the third quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws. In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on December 23, 2020. These cases have been dismissed. On December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs in the federal cases which consisted of counsel for three of the four federal cases. These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021. CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same day. The remaining federal case, "Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al," differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. However, the Potter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice on April 5, 2021. ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and CUB's complaint on February 4, 2021 and briefing was completed on March 22, 2021. On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed, along with state court plaintiffs, discussed below, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no settlement was reached. On September 9, 2021, the federal court granted Exelon's and ComEd's motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs' and CUB's federal law claim with prejudice. The federal court also dismissed the related state law claims made by the federal plaintiffs and CUB on jurisdictional grounds. Plaintiffs appealed dismissal of the federal law claim to the Seventh Circuit court of Appeals. Plaintiffs and CUB also refiled their state law claims in state court and moved to consolidate them with the already pending consumer state court class action. On August 22, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated federal cases in their entirety. Exelon is a utility services holding company engaged in the energy distribution and transmission businesses through ComEd, PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL, and ACE based in Pennsylvania. FANNIE MAE: Judge Declares Senior Preferred Stock Suits Mistrial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Court declared mistrial for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class and Fairolme Funds Class Suits. District of Columbia (In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA). Fannie Mae is a defendant in two cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including a consolidated class action. The cases were consolidated for trial and the trial was conducted from October 17, 2022 to November 1, 2022. Jury deliberations began on November 1, 2022. The jury in this trial was not able to reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial on November 7, 2022. The Company expects the court to set a new trial date. Federal National Mortgage Association (OTCQB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that was chartered by U.S. Congress in 1938 to support liquidity, stability and affordability in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold. Fannie Mae helps make the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and affordable rental housing possible for millions of Americans. The Company partners with lenders to create housing opportunities for families across the country. Visit -- http://www.FannieMae.comFannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") acting as conservator, since Sept. 6, 2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or director of the company with respect to the company and its assets. The conservator has since provided for the exercise of certain authorities by the Company's Board of Directors. The Company's directors do not have any fiduciary duties to any person or entity except to the conservator and, accordingly, are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of the Company's equity or debt securities, or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator. A brother organization of Fannie Mae is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC) -- http://www.FreddieMac.com-- was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. FIFTH BANCORP: Christakis Putative Class Suit Concluded ------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the the Lee Christakis shareholder putative class suit is concluded after plaintiffs failed to appeal the dismissal of motion of defendants. On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Christakis filed a putative class action lawsuit against Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer Greg D. Carmichael, and former Fifth Third Chief Financial Officer Tayfun Tuzun in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Lee Christakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill). The case brings two claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection with the alleged unauthorized opening of credit card, savings, checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010 through 2016. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On June 29, 2020, the Court appointed Heavy & General Laborers' Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead plaintiff, and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff. On September 14, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its amended consolidated complaint. On April 27, 2021, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, and provided the plaintiff with leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies. On October 8, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 25, 2022, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal that decision and the case is now concluded. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH BANCORP: Discovery Ongoing in Fox Putative Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that discovery is ongoing in the Fox Putative shareholder class suit. On July 31, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2020CH05219 was filed on behalf of former shareholders of MB Financial, Inc. in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court. The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain of its officers and directors made material misstatements and omissions regarding the alleged improper cross-selling strategy in filings made in connection with the Bancorp's merger with MB Financial, Inc. On March 19, 2021, the trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is currently in discovery and no trial date has been set. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH BANCORP: Klopfenstein Trial Set for April 2023 ---------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio set the trial on the Klopfenstein class suits on April 2023. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class action lawsuits were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million, plus interest under Ohio law. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court has set a trial date in April 2023. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH BANCORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Helton -------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Appelate Court affirmed the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of the Defendants in the Helton suit. On August 31, 2015, trust beneficiaries filed an action against Fifth Third Bank, as trustee, in the Probate Court for Hamilton County, Ohio (Helen Clarke Helton, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 2015003814). The plaintiffs alleged breach of the duty to diversify, breach of the duty of impartiality, breach of trust/fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, based on Fifth Third’s alleged failure to diversify assets held in two trusts for the plaintiffs’ benefit. The lawsuit sought over $800 million in alleged damages, attorneys' fees, removal of Fifth Third as trustee, and injunctive relief. On April 20, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Fifth Third, dismissing the case in its entirety. On December 18, 2019, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Probate Court's dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims based upon allegations of Fifth Third's alleged failure to diversify assets. The appeals court reversed summary judgment on one claim alleging Fifth Third was unjustly enriched through its receipt of certain trust management fees. On remand, on July 28, 2021 the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment to Fifth Third on a portion of plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiffs abandoned the remainder of the unjust enrichment claim. On March 30, 2022, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH THIRD: Visa/MasterCard Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Visa/MasterCard Merchant Interchange consolidated antitrust class suit is ongoing. In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa®, MasterCard and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 17 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was initially approved by the trial court but reversed by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs' class (the "Plaintiff Damages Class") and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $700 million of the additional $900 million has been returned to the defendants due to the level of opt-outs from the class. The Bancorp's allocated share of the settlement is within existing reserves, including funds maintained in escrow. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement, which is currently pending appeal. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. On September 27, 2021, the Court entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FLAGGE CONTRACTING: Sarmiento et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALBERTO ESPINOZA SARMIENTO, GEOVANI PEREZ and ALFREDO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAGGE CONTRACTING INC., FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ and MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09718 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as manual workers. Plaintiff Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento was employed from in or around June 2014 until in or around February 2020 as a carpenter, mason, concrete and rebar worker while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. Plaintiff Geovani Perez was employed fro in or around March 2014 until in or around December 2018 as a carpenter and mason while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. Plaintiff Alfredo Perez was employed from in or around April 2014 until in or around December 2018 as a carpenter and mason while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated manual workers were required by the Defendants to regularly work more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also paid them on a bi-weekly basis, thereby failing to pay them on timely basis. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records, and willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to provide them with any wage statements upon each payment of their wages, and with any written notice of their applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required by NYLL, says the suit. On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages and untimely paid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. Flagge Contracting, Inc. is a construction company owned by Francisco Rodriguez and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Durbin Seeks Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN DURBIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, and FOUNDATIONS HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01719-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): 1. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated; 2. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to the following: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt direct care employees 1 of Defendants who were paid for at least 40 hours of work in any workweek that they had a meal break deduction applied to their hours worked beginning three years prior to the filing date of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case;" 3. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form; 4. Directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma- delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above that includes their full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, personal email addresses, and phone numbers ("Roster"); and 5. Directing Defendants to provide a declaration that the produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order. This case involves the Defendants' unlawful companywide policy and/or practice of requiring meal break deductions when employees do not enjoy bona fide meal periods. The Plaintiff contends that she worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN"). At all relevant times, the Defendants have had a companywide policy and/or practice of applying a 30-minute deduction to its direct care employees' daily hours worked for meal breaks. However, she and Defendants' other similarly situated direct care employees were often unable to take a full 30-minute, uninterrupted meal break. This meal break deduction resulted in Defendants not paying her and other similarly situated direct care employees all of the overtime compensation they earned, the Plaintiff adds. On September 26, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated to recover their unpaid overtime. Foundations Health is a long-term care company specialized in physical therapy, skilled nursing and hospice care services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iffEcPat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com FRED MEYER: New Payroll System Caused Pay Error, Woody Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- The case SAMANTHA WOODY and NICOLE URVINA, on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01800 (D. Or., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges that the Defendant activated a new payroll system in September 2022 that caused widespread pay errors in violation of Oregon wage laws. On September 2022, Fred Meyer activated a system of human resources programs and software commonly referred to as an "enterprise resource planning" or "ERP" system. As part of its new ERP system, Fred Meyer activated a new payroll system for its hourly paid, non-exempt employees in Oregon. The new payroll system has allegedly caused widespread pay errors for the Plaintiffs and members of the Class, including missing or late paychecks, canceled direct deposits, incorrect payment of wages, incorrect recording of hours worked, incorrect deductions or withholdings from wages, incorrect or missing statements of deductions or withholdings, and delayed disbursement of deductions or withholdings to the appropriate recipients, says the suit. Accordingly, the errors in Fred Meyer's new payroll system have been so widespread and severe that many members of the Class have gone weeks without any pay. Instead of promptly correcting the wage errors, Fred Meyer has issued prepaid debit cards to some members of the Class whom it deems have been most affected. The prepaid debit cards do not reflect the amounts of wages actually owed to members of the Class. As a result of not being paid their wages and not receiving itemized statements of deductions, many members of the Class have stopped coming to work or have resigned their employment. Members of the Class whose employment ended since activation of the new payroll system have not been fully paid their wages and have not been told when they will receive back wages, added the suit. Fred Meyer is a chain of retail grocery stores with its principal place of business at 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard B. Myers, Esq. BENNETT HARTMAN, LLP 210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204-3149 Telephone: (503) 546-9623 E-mail: richard@bennetthartman.com GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Three Stockholder Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEO Group 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 8, 2022, the Company continues to defend itself from the three shareholder derivative suits. Three related putative shareholder derivative actions have also been filed. These cases generally allege breaches of fiduciary duties related to the same underlying matters alleged in the class action. First, on July 1, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Court against the Company, as well as current and former Company directors and officers George C. Zoley, Jose Gordo, Brian R. Evans, Ann M. Schlarb, Richard H. Glanton, Anne N. Foreman, Christopher C. Wheeler, Julie M. Wood, Guido van Hauwermeiren, Scott M. Kernan, and Duane Helkowski (collectively, the "State Court Defendants"). Second, On November 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, the State Court Defendants, as well as current and former Company officers David Venturella and J. David Donahue (collectively, the "Derivative Defendants"). Third, on August 24, 2022, a putative stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and the Derivative Defendants. The state-court complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the State Court Defendants relating to purported healthcare and quality of care deficiencies, an allegedly inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged forced labor by detainees, and alleged exposure to pending litigation, which purportedly led to damage to GEO. The federal-court complaints make similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as to the Derivative Defendants, and also allege that the Derivative Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that Mr. Zoley contributed to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The state-court lawsuit and the first federal-court lawsuit are currently stayed pending the resolution of the federal putative shareholder class action lawsuit described above. GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these four lawsuits, and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) is a leading diversified government service provider, specializing in design, financing, development, and support services for secure facilities, processing centers, and community reentry centers in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO's diversified services include enhanced in-custody rehabilitation and post-release support through the award-winning GEO Continuum of Care, secure transportation, electronic monitoring, community-based programs, and correctional health and mental health care. GEO's worldwide operations include the ownership and/or delivery of support services for 103 facilities totaling approximately 83,000 beds, including idle facilities and projects under development, with a workforce of up to approximately 18,000 employees. GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Voluntary Work Program Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEO Group 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 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Voluntary Work Program (VWP) class suit. Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. This lawsuit is similar to the cases in Colorado, Washington and California. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") at GEO’s Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state's minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unjust enrichment, human trafficking and forced labor. GEO believes it operates the VWP in full compliance with its contract with ICE and all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits, and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) is a leading diversified government service provider, specializing in design, financing, development, and support services for secure facilities, processing centers, and community reentry centers in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO's diversified services include enhanced in-custody rehabilitation and post-release support through the award-winning GEO Continuum of Care, secure transportation, electronic monitoring, community-based programs, and correctional health and mental health care. GEO's worldwide operations include the ownership and/or delivery of support services for 103 facilities totaling approximately 83,000 beds, including idle facilities and projects under development, with a workforce of up to approximately 18,000 employees. GEO GROUP: Court Junks DeLoach, Oketola Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- GEO Group 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 8, 2022, that the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida dismissed all Second Amended Complaint claims in a shareholder putative class suit. On July 7, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its officers George C. Zoley and Brian R. Evans, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs, James Michael DeLoach and Edward Oketola, filed a consolidated class action amended complaint against Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as current and former Company officers J. David Donahue and Ann M. Schlarb. On September 23, 2021, the court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Evans and Donahue, and Ms. Schlarb, and dismissed all claims against GEO and Mr. Zoley other than claims related to GEO's disclosures about pending litigation. On October 4, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that GEO and Mr. Zoley violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Mr. Zoley violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to pending litigation, and seeks relief individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities––other than the defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period from November 9, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive. The second amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On June 21, 2022, the court dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint other than those related to the Company's statements about pending lawsuits made prior to July 17, 2019. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) is a leading diversified government service provider, specializing in design, financing, development, and support services for secure facilities, processing centers, and community reentry centers in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO's diversified services include enhanced in-custody rehabilitation and post-release support through the award-winning GEO Continuum of Care, secure transportation, electronic monitoring, community-based programs, and correctional health and mental health care. GEO's worldwide operations include the ownership and/or delivery of support services for 103 facilities totaling approximately 83,000 beds, including idle facilities and projects under development, with a workforce of up to approximately 18,000 employees. GEO GROUP: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Immigration Detainees -------------------------------------------------------------- GEO Group 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 8, 2022, the Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the Immigration Defense class suit. Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a voluntary work program the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the court granted the plaintiff-class's motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an Order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Company's affirmative defenses, denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company's motion for relief. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) is a leading diversified government service provider, specializing in design, financing, development, and support services for secure facilities, processing centers, and community reentry centers in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO's diversified services include enhanced in-custody rehabilitation and post-release support through the award-winning GEO Continuum of Care, secure transportation, electronic monitoring, community-based programs, and correctional health and mental health care. GEO's worldwide operations include the ownership and/or delivery of support services for 103 facilities totaling approximately 83,000 beds, including idle facilities and projects under development, with a workforce of up to approximately 18,000 employees. GLOBE LIFE: Berry Collective Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------- Globe Life 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 8, 2022, that the U.S. States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Berry Collective Suit on May 20, 2022. On February 27, 2020, putative collective action litigation was filed against American Income in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Berry, et al v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-00110-LPL). The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, pursued relief on behalf of "all individuals who trained to become and/or worked as sales agents/insurance producers for American Income Life Insurance" in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleged that agent trainees and insurance agents should have been classified as employees. It asserted a national collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and sought compensation for minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, missed meal and rest breaks, recoupment of certain commissions and improper recordkeeping. In addition, the lawsuit asserted a class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law seeking similar relief. Plaintiffs also sought liquidated damages and attorney's fees, and asserted an unjust enrichment claim. On September 20, 2020, American Income's motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' individual claims was granted. Thereafter, the parties negotiated the settlement of such claims for a non-material amount, individually and in the aggregate. The case was then dismissed by the Court on May 20, 2022 pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by the parties. Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance, annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. HAEMONETICS CORP: Continues to Defend Crumpton Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Haemonetics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Crumpton putative class Suit. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Mary Crumpton, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals. In her complaint, the plaintiff asserts that between June 2017 and August 2018 she donated plasma at a center operated by one of the Company's customers, that the center required her to scan her finger print in a scanner that stored her finger print to identify her prior to plasma donation, and that the Company's eQue donor management software sent her biometric information to a Company-owned server to be collected and stored in a manner that violated her rights under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and equitable relief. In March 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and concurrently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to stay. In late March 2022, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but did not address the merits of the Company's other positions. The Company believes the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. Haemonetics is a global healthcare company dedicated to providing a suite of innovative medical products and solutions for customers, to help them improve patient care and reduce the cost of healthcare. HAIN CELESTIAL: Class & Derivative Suits Temporary Stay Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hain Celestial Group 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 8, 2022, that the Court granted temporary stay of the Consolidated Stockholder class and derivative suits until December 30, 2022. On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes Complaint"), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company. The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the District Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint"). On August 10, 2017, the District Court granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the "Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, described above. On March 29, 2019, the District Court in the Consolidated Securities Action granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 6, 2019. The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint in this matter. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August 7, 2020. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On August 10, 2020, the District Court vacated the briefing schedule on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of Directors time to consider the demand. On each of September 8 and October 8, 2020, the District Court extended its stay of any applicable deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors additional time to complete its evaluation of the demand. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the District Court that Plaintiffs were evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought certain additional information and were assessing next steps, and requested that the District Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days, to on or around December 7, 2020. The Parties then filed a number of additional joint status reports, requesting that the District Court continue the stay of applicable deadlines through December 30, 2021. In light of the Second Circuit vacating the District Court's judgment in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above and remanding the case for further proceedings, the Parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court's reconsideration of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The District Court has extended the temporary stay through December 30, 2022. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products, with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York. [BN] HALLMARK CARDS: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook, Cantu Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HALLMARK CARDS, INC., a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08473 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges that Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook including the visitor's identity and the titles watched Whenever someone watches a video on www.hallmarkvideogreetingcards.com (the "Website"). The Defendants' actions violate the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). As such, Defendants are liable to each class member for $2,500 and related relief, the suit says. Mr. Cantu is a consumer privacy advocate with dual motivations for watching a video on Defendants' Website. First, Mr. Cantu was genuinely interested in learning more about the goods and services offered by the Defendants. Second, Mr. Cantu is a "tester" who works to ensure that companies abide by the privacy obligations imposed by federal law. During 2022, Mr. Cantu visited Hallmarkvideogreetingcards.com and watched a video. When Plaintiff watched videos on Hallmarkvideogreetingcards.com, the Defendants allegedly disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the video's title and URL, along with every time Plaintiff clicked a button to play the video. By disclosing his event data and identifiers, the Defendants disclosed the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") to a third-party, the suit alleges. Hallmark is the oldest and largest manufacturer of greeting cards in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hanna Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK HANNA JR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLLYWOOD PARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC., a limited liability company; HOLLYWOOD PARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV36594 (Cal. Super, Nov. 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants allegedly fail to provide meal periods, fail to authorize and permit rest periods, fail to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, fail to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, fail to indemnify necessary business expenses, and fail to furnish accurate wage statements, for which Plaintiff seeks penalties, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies within the scope of California Labor Code, et seq. California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and deemed just and proper under the California law. The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for the Defendants in the County of Los Angeles as a Guest Service Manager from February 2020 to October 2021. On January 20, 2022, the Plaintiff gave written notice by online filing to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and by certified mail to the Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code that Defendants have violated, including the facts and theories to support the violations. More than 65 days have elapsed since the Plaintiff provided notice, but the Labor and Workforce Development Agency has not indicated that it intends to investigate the Defendants' Labor Code violations discussed in the notice. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may commence a civil action to recover penalties for the violations of the Labor Code, says the suit. Hollywood Park is California limited liability companies with their principal places of business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com rov.suh@moonyanglaw.com ISS FACILITY: Court Junks Garcia's Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA, v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying Garcia's motion for class certification and her motion to strike ISS's declarations offered in opposition. Garcia first proposes simply certifying a class of: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants ISS Facility Services, Inc. and ISS Facility Services California, Inc. in California at any time during the period from October 24, 2015 through the date of class certification ("Class Period")." The first problem with this proposal is that it leaves uncertain the status of defendant Broadridge, which is alleged to be "joint employer" with ISS at Broadridge's El Dorado facility, but not at any other locations where ISS provides staffing in California. Second, Garcia has not otherwise shown that she can pursue the alleged claims on behalf of employees at facilities other than Broadridge. Because Garcia has not satisfied several of the requirements for certification, the motion will be denied, the Court says. Garcia's alternative proposal for separate classes and subclasses, however, is also flawed, the Court adds. She suggests the following definitions: 1. Minimum Wage Class: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period. a. Rounding Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who were not paid by Defendants based on employee clock in and clock out times;" and b. Off-the-clock Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period;" 2. Overtime Class: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long;" a. Rounding Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who were not paid by the Defendants based on employee clock in and clock out times, and worked one shift over eight hours long;" and b. Off-the-clock Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long;" 3. Rest Break Class: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours long. 4. Meal Period Class "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long;" a. First Meal Break Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long;" and b. Second Meal Period Subclass: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees at Defendants' California facilities during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over ten hours long;" and 5. Wage Statement Class: "all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period. The Plaintiff Claudia Garcia brought this action on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of the Defendants, alleging various violations of wage and hours laws. Garcia contends she and other employees were not provided the required meal and rest breaks, particularly because they were not permitted to leave the premises during rest breaks, and therefore remained "under the control" of the employer. ISS Facility is an international facilities maintenance and staffing company with nearly 400,000 employees worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VwvTAkat no extra charge.[CC] KEYSTONE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Nickey Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER NICKEY, individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of A.N., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYSTONE HEALTH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01842-JPW (M.D. Pa., Nov. 17, 2022) sues the Defendant for failing to secure patients' personal identifiable information and/or protected health information during a data breach of Keystone's computer systems. Between July 28, 2022 and August 19, 2022, bad actor(s) had unrestricted access to all PII and PHI in certain Keystone computer systems. Keystone did not announce the Data Breach publicly until October 14, 2022, and only began sending out Data Breach notification letters to Plaintiff and class members during that same time period. Based on the public statements of Keystone to date, a wide variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the breach, including names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and/or treatment or clinical information, such as diagnosis, medications, provider, type of treatment, or treatment locations. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives, the suit claims, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, A.N. and the Class, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff and the Class seek remedies including damages for out of pocket costs in an amount to be determined at trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Keystone to, at minimum: -- disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of PII and PHI accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; -- implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of PII and PHI possessed by Keystone; and -- provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Keystone is a nonprofit corporation and healthcare provider headquartered in Franklin County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Kevin W. Fay, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com kfay@golomblegal.com KRAFT HEINZ: Ramirez Sues Over Mislabeled Mac & Cheese Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-23782-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented its products through statements, omissions, ambiguities, half-truths and/or actions, that it would take 3-and-a-half minutes total to prepare and be ready for consumption. Kraft Heinz manufactures, labels, markets and sells microwavable single serve cups of mac and cheese represented as "READY IN 3.5 MINUTES" under the Velveeta brand. The statement of "ready in 3 1/2 minutes" is false and misleading because the Product takes longer than 3-and-a-half minutes to prepare for consumption, says the suit. The label does not state the Product takes "3 1/2 minutes to cook in the microwave," which would have been true. To provide consumers with a Product that is actually "ready in 3 1/2 minutes," the Product would need to be cooked in the microwave for less than 3-and-a-half minutes, so that all the preparation steps could be completed in the 3-and-a-half minutes timeframe. Consumers are misled to expect the Product will be ready for consumption in a shorter amount of time than it really takes to prepare. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $10.99 for eight 2.39 oz cups, 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, the lawsuit added. The Defendant violated and continues to violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts and practices, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its business, the lawsuit claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com KROGER CO: Fails to Properly & Timely Pay Wages, Wilder Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON WILDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00681-DRC (S.D. Ohio, November 17, 2022) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver and as a warehouse worker in Union, Kentucky since approximately October 7, 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers were not properly and timely compensated by the Defendant for all hours they have worked because its timekeeping system suffered outages which lasted from approximately September 1, 2022 until November 5, 2022. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to compensate them in a timely manner for all hours worked within the time frame required under the Kentucky Acts, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendant to recover all unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. The Kroger Co. is a grocery retail chain stores in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COZ, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Tel: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com LABORATORY CORP: Tabai Sues Over Untimely Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLINA TABAI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS D/B/A LABCORP, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017017 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, November 15, 2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for allegedly violating the Florida Consumer Practices Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant began attempting to collect an alleged debt incurred by her primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The Defendant sent an electronic communication to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2022 between the hours of 9:00PM and 8:00AM in the time zone of the Plaintiff. The Defendant allegedly did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to send an e-mail between the hours of 9:00PM and 8:00AM in her time zone. As a result, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated Section 559.72(17) of the FCCPA, says the Plaintiff. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com LEPRINO FOODS: Class Action Scheduling Order Entered in Dominguez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered a class action scheduling conference order as follows: -- All non-expert discovery, including July 28, 2023 motions to compel related to class certification discovery, shall be completed no later than: -- The class certification motions: Motion for Class Certification and Sept. 15, 2023 Merits of Plaintiff: Opposition: Oct. 27, 2023 Reply: Nov. 17, 2023 -- A Mid-Discovery Status Conference May 24, 2023 will be held on: Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EJuekpat no extra charge.[CC] LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shafer/Cohen Suit Pending in Col. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lighting eMotors 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 a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action in Colorado is pending with the court. On October 15, 2021, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action. The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and is captioned Shafer v. Lightning eMotors, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv02774. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for purported false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations and financial condition. A related lawsuit captioned Cohen v. Lightning eMotors, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03215, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on December 1, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Cohen lawsuit was consolidated with the Shafer lawsuit. On April 22, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated lawsuit. The lead plaintiff's filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2022. On July 13, 2022, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action. The plaintiffs replied on September 7, 2022, and the motion to dismiss is pending with the court. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other remedies. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against such allegations. Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells zero-emission commercial fleet vehicles and powertrains to commercial fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and governments in the United States. It is based in Loveland, Colorado. LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit on Jan. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lordstown Motors Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC, oral argument on a motion to dismiss has been scheduled for January 6, 2022. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and 13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v. Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1085)). The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction. On February 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits, appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2022 and the court held oral argument on February 28, 2022. On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2022, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2022, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2022. On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 22, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint asserting similar claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiffs' answering brief and Defendants' reply brief are due on November 18 and December 9, 2022, respectively. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for January 6, 2022. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. MARATHON OIL: Settlement in Principle Reached in Suit Over Royalty ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marathon Oil Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that Marathon Oil was named in a lawsuit alleging improper royalty deductions in certain of its Oklahoma operations, and after plaintiffs lost their attempt to certify a class action, a settlement in principle was reached, subject to court approval. Marathon Oil Corporation is an independent exploration and production company based in Texas. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust class suit. On May 19, 2020, an intended class proceeding was commenced in the Province of Québec, Canada naming as defendants Masonite Corporation, Masonite International Corporation, JELD-WEN, Inc., JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. and JELD-WEN of Canada, Ltd. The plaintiff alleges that the Masonite and JELD-WEN defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing involving interior molded doors. The intended class proceeding seeks damages, punitive damages and other relief. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a motion with the court seeking to stay the proceeding. While the Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of this litigation will not have a material, adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MATRIX ABSENCE: Court Decertifies Weeks Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, et al., v. Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for decertification of collective action. -- The claims of all opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied. -- Pursuant to the Court's July 6, 2022 Order, any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than December 21, 2022. On May 6, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated this action alleging they and other similarly situated employees of Defendant were improperly classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and had therefore been denied overtime wages. The Defendant provides third-party administration of disability and leave-of-absence claims. The Plaintiffs worked as "Claims Examination Employees" with the primary duty of "reviewing employee disability and leave of absence claims to determine benefit eligibility." On October 15, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the following collective class of employees pursuant to the FLSA: "all individuals employed by Matrix as Claims Examination Employees in the last three years who were paid on a salary basis and classified by Defendant as exempt from overtime compensation." "Claims Examination Employees" was defined to include job titles that allegedly shared the duty of "utilizing Defendant's guidelines to determine whether to approve Claims based on whether they meet specific, predetermined criteria." On February 16, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint to add an additional named plaintiff, Samantha Stocklein, seeking to bring a claim for failure to pay overtime under Oregon law on behalf of herself and other putative class members employed by Defendant as claims examiners in Oregon, in addition to the FLSA claim. Matrix provides absence management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XA0xe5at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES BENZ: Class Certification Deadlines Vacated in Hazdovac ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order vacating the deadlines set forth in the Order Amending Case Schedule. -- The deadline for the Parties to conduct mediation shall be February 23, 2023. -- Within 30 days of completion of mediation, the Parties shall submit a revised case scheduling order setting forth class certification deadlines consistent with the time 8 allotted for completion of briefing of class certification/Daubert previously submitted and approved. Mercedes-Benz sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gv1XWsat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Troy M. Yoshino, Esq. Eric J. Knapp, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 475 Sansome Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com eric.knapp@squirepb.com NASHVILLE, TN: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Harris Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VAUGHN HARRIS, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00221 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his case under Rule 59(e). On May 24, 2022, the Court granted pauper status to Harris, a state inmate proceeding pro se, and ordered him to file an amended complaint that does not include photocopies of pages from previous filings or any class allegations/claims, o assert unrelated claims against unrelated parties. It provided him with a form to use in filing his amended complaint, ordered him to file the amended complaint within 30 days, and warned him that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. The Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 23, 2022, in which he purported to appeal the May 24 order's "dismissal of his class action." On Aug. 10, 2022, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the denial of class certification is not immediately appealable, nor did Harris petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification within 14 days as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). On Sept. 20, 2022, more than 30 days after the Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, the Court dismissed the instant case without prejudice for want of prosecution and for his failure to comply with the Court's May 24 order to file a proper amended complaint. Twenty-four days later, on Oct. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an "objection" to the dismissal of his case, or alternatively, a notice of appeal if he's denied reopen of his case. Because the Plaintiff filed his objection within 28 days of the Court's September 20 order of dismissal, it may properly be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend that order. The Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his case based on his assertion that he in fact complied with the Court's May 24 order by filing amendments to his complaint -- in addition to a notice of appeal -- within 30 days of the Court's order. He appears to be referring to a document appended to his June 23 Notice of Appeal, which is captioned "Motion for leave of court to amend my pleadings to a (pro se and) class action lawsuit action in conjunction with case 3:15-cv-00356 and memorandum in support of motion to amend." However, Judge Trauger finds that this document fails to comply with the requirements of the Court's May 24 order, as it includes both photocopies of pages from previous filings and class allegations/claims. Even more basically, she says the document is not an amended complaint. Having failed to comply with the clear instructions in the Court's May 24 order, the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that a need to prevent manifest injustice requires the reopening of this case. Accordingly, Judge Trauger denies the Plaintiff's objection, construed as a motion seeking reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The Clerk will re-docket the Plaintiff's "Proposed Notice of Appeal" as a Notice of Appeal. In addition, the Clerk will forward a copy of the Order to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9xann5 from Leagle.com. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Discriminates Non-White Applicants, Myers Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JHISAIAH MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 2:22-cv-07023 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges that the Defendants unfairly, improperly, and unlawfully eliminate qualified non-white applicants from consideration for employment as police officers. In late 2017, Officer Myers says that he applied to become a Nassau County police officer, a job for which he is plainly qualified. Officer Myers passed the written exam, performed well on the physical agility test, and -- as evidenced by his current work -- has a background that strongly reflects his respect for the law. On August 6, 2020, the Civil Service informed Officer Myers that he had been disqualified, purportedly for "disrespect for the process of law and order as evidenced by [his] motor vehicle record." The Civil Service's decision surprised Officer Myers. As he had no arrests, no convictions, and no moving violations on his record, nor did he have any problematic employment history, medical, or psychological problems, the Plaintiff says. In 2016, the NCPD hired a former NYPD officer, who on information and belief is a white male ("Officer A"). Officer A's record reflects serious concerns. Accordingly, the Defendants hired white applicants who began the post-exam process 1.61 times more often than similar Hispanic applicants, and a staggering 2.84 times more often than similar Black applicants. The Defendants have, in sum, discriminated against Officer Myers and similarly situated applicants in violation of 42 U.S.C. and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the suit added. Nassau County is located immediately east of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorin L. Reisner, Esq. Liza M. Velazquez, Esq. Kamil R. Ammari, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: lreisner@paulweiss.com lvelazquez@paulweiss.com kammari@paulweiss.com - and - Frederick K. Brewington, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Blvd. Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 489-6959 E-mail: fred@brewingtonlaw.com - and – Randolph M. McLaughlin, Esq. Debra S. Cohen, Esq. Casey K. Pearlman, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (216) 619-5400 E-mail: rmclaughlin@nfllp.com dcohen@nfllp.com cpearlman@nfllp.com NEW YORK, NY: Certification of Classes in Local 3621 v. FDNY Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of its members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-4476 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Representative Plaintiffs Renae Mascol and Luis Rodriguez, together with Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, bring a putative class action for discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, including race, sex, and/or gender, against the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY"), the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS") and John and Jane Does Nos. 1 to 20. The complaint asserts that the promotional process for Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") officers to certain leadership positions has resulted in disparate and discriminatory promotional practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), as well as 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983. The class action complaint in the action was filed on May 21, 2018. The Defendants answered on Oct. 11, 2018, and filed an amended answer on Feb. 5, 2021. During the course of class certification discovery, disputes arose between the parties, and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference due to the Defendants' failure to produce certain demographic data in the course of class certification discovery. Their motion was granted in part and denied in part; the Plaintiffs' request for an adverse inference was denied, although they were awarded sanctions in the form of reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification along with supporting documentation on Jan. 18, 2021. They move for an order certifying certain classes, appointing Representative Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing The Kurland Group as class counsel. The Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) comprised of EMS officers in the SEMSS title from 1996 to present who are non-white, female, have received a reasonable accommodation, or have taken a leave of absent due to a disability or pursuant to FDNY time and leave policies (estimated at 2,178 individuals), which the Plaintiffs refer to as the "Equitable Class." The Plaintiffs also seek to certify two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) comprised of (1) non-white and/or female EMS officers in the SEMSS title from 1996 to present (estimated at 1,007 individuals), which the Plaintiffs refer to as the "Race/Sex/Gender Class" and (2) EMS officers in the SEMSS title from 1996 to present who have received a reasonable accommodation or taken a leave of absence because of a disability and/or have taken a leave of absence pursuant to FDNY time and leave policies (estimated at 1,007 individuals), which the Plaintiffs refer to as the "Non-Full Duty Status Class." Oral argument was held on the motion for class certification on March 7, 2022. After oral argument, the parties filed letters alerting the Court to recent decisions of courts in the District. Having reviewed the parties' statistical analyses and the pertinent anecdotal evidence, Judge Liman holds that the Plaintiffs have not offered significant proof of a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a specific employment process and to draw any causal connection between that employment process and any disparities; (ii) the Plaintiffs' evidence to support their classwide claims of disparate treatment based on race, sex, and gender discrimination is inadequate; (iii) the Plaintiffs offer no statistical evidence in support of their disparate treatment claim regarding Non-Full Duty Status Officers; and (iv) the primary evidence in favor of the Plaintiffs' claim appears to come from the anecdotal evidence of their declarants. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have not met Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, and their proposed classes cannot be certified. Accordingly, their motion for class certification is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 300. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pkfw8w6f from Leagle.com. ORBIT FURNITURE: Underpays Manual Workers, Anderson Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CALEB ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. ORBIT FURNITURE INC., ORBIT FURNITURE NY LLC, ORBIT FURNITURE BROOKLYN WAY, INC., and VLADIMIR BAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06919 (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff has worked as a general worker and mover at the Defendants' furniture stores known as "Orbit Furniture" from on or around June 8, 2019 to, through and including August 8, 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual workers were required by the Defendants to work more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to post notices regarding their wages, and failed to provide them with accurate wage statements and with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, for himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and spread of hours pay, as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to the total amount of wages found to be due, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Orbit Furniture Inc., Orbit Furniture NY LLC, and Orbit Furniture Brooklyn Way, Inc. manufacture furniture. Vladimir Bar is the owner of the Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in Israeli Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that in March 3, 2021, a claim and motion to certify a class action was filed in the Tel Aviv District court (Economic Division) on behalf of Avishai Shmuel Mano against Ormat Technologies Inc. and 23 additional named respondents, who include existing and former directors and officers of the company. On July 1, 2021, the court accepted plaintiff's motion to withdraw the claim against the named foreign respondents, retaining only the claim against the company and the named present and former directors and officers who are domiciled in Israel. The claim seeks economic damages of approximately $100 million purportedly caused to shareholders by defendants' alleged inaccurate reporting and provision of misleading information to the public in breach of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on claims made in a report published by short-seller Hindenburg Research on March 1, 2021. On April 13, 2022, the Tel Aviv District court approved the plaintiff's motion to withdraw the motion to certify and Ormat will pay immaterial costs of less than $10 thousand. Ormat Technologies, Inc.is a vertically integrated company that is primarily engaged in the geothermal energy power business based in Nevada. PAPARAZZI LLC: Court Junks Bids to Consolidate End Consumer Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI TESKE and TERRI FRANKLIN, v. PAPARAZZI, LLC; MISTY KIRBY; TRENT KIRBY; CHANTEL REEVE; and RYAN REEVE, Case No. 4:22-cv-00035-DBB-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order that the Motions to Consolidate are denied. The Court further ordered that notice is given that the court intends to transfer the End Consumer Cases to District Judge David Barlow. Any objection to such transfers must be filed (in this action) within 14 days. Based on Paparazzi being a common defendant and the existence of common factual questions regarding Paparazzi's representations and the chemical makeup of Paparazzi's products, a transfer of the End Consumer Cases to the undersigned judge is appropriate. Such transfer will facilitate coordinated discovery among the cases and will avoid any potential for inconsistent rulings. Therefore, the Motions to Consolidate are denied. This action involves a multilevel-marketing company that uses a nationwide network of "Consultants" to sell jewelry and accessory items to "End Consumers." The Plaintiffs Lori Teske and Terri Franklin were Consultants of Defendant Paparazzi, LLC. They filed a proposed class action Complaint on behalf of themselves and other Paparazzi Consultants alleging claims against Paparazzi and its founders 3 for: (1) violation of the Lanham Act section 43(a); (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Utah Code Ann. section 70A-2-314; (3) breach of contract; and (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3u5937aat no extra charge.[CC] PEABODY ENERGY: Court Initially OKs Settlement in OFPRS SEC Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that preliminary approval of the class action settlement of the Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 has been entered by the court and a hearing is set for February 2023. On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System brought a lawsuit, styled "In Re Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 (PKC)," against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who held company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the company's North Goonyella Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the company's plan to restart the mine after the fire. On January 12, 2021, the court appointed the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021, while the Plaintiffs' response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The plaintiffs' opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs' opposition on August 23, 2021, which completed briefing. On March 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. As a result of this decision, only Plaintiffs' allegations relating to the company's September 25, 2018 statements remained in the case. On May 13, 2022, the court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order. On August 2, 2022, Peabody and Plaintiffs agreed to settle all claims brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's shares between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019 in exchange for $4.6 million, to be paid by Peabody's insurers. On October 13, 2022, the court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. A hearing date of February 7, 2023 is set for final approval of the settlement agreement. Peabody Energy Corporation is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal based in Missouri. PETROCHEM INSULATION: Class Status Deadline Extended in Boyuk ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order granting that Plaintiff's "unopposed motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification." The deadlines in the Initial Case Management Order and the Court's June 7, 2022 Order are extended as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by February 3, 2023. -- The Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 23 Class Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by March 10, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support of Rule 23 class certification, if any, shall be filed by March 24, 2023. Petrochem Insulation provides plastering, drywall, scaffolding, and insulation services and installation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GL73bWat no extra charge.[CC] PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Basher-Asher Putative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bar-Asher putative class suit. On November 23, 2021, the Company and its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.). The complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleged violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company's IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants' service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint and memorandum of law in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP. operates as a digital entertainment company. The Company specializes in the development and publication of free to play mobile games. [BN] PRACTICE RESOURCES: Stewart & Bachura Data Breach Suits Combined ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, JAMES STEWART and SUSAN STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRACTICE RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant. JOHN BACHURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRACTICE RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 6:22-CV-0890 (LEK/DJS), 5:22-CV-0905 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants the unopposed motion seeking to consolidate the two captioned actions and to have the Court appoint interim co-lead counsel for the class. The Plaintiffs in these two related actions, each acting on behalf of a putative class, have asserted various claims against the Defendant for failing to secure and safeguard patients' and employees' sensitive personal data. On Aug. 25, 2022, the Stewarts, by and through their attorney Nicholas A. Migliaccio of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, filed the first lawsuit "on behalf of individuals whose sensitive personally identifiable information ('PII') was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack on the Defendant's systems that took place in or around April 12, 2022." According to the Stewarts, this attack resulted in the access and exfiltration of sensitive patient and employee information. They allege that the Defendant did not begin notifying affected individuals until at least Aug. 4, 2022, and that because of this failure, the Stewarts and the Class members have experienced and will experience various types of misuse of their PII in the coming months and years, including but not limited to, unauthorized credit card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, identity theft, and other fraudulent use of their Private Information. The Stewart class action asserts claims on behalf of a Nationwide Class, as well as a New York Subclass. The Stewarts define the Nationwide Class as "all persons residing in the United States whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach discovered on or about April of 2022 and who were sent notice of the Data Breach." They define the New York Subclass as the same but limited to "all persons residing in New York." The Stewarts further assert that the Court has jurisdiction over their claims under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On Aug. 30, 2022, John Bachura, by and through his attorney, James J. Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., commenced a second action regarding the Data Breach in this District on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. In that action, Bachura identifies one class that is virtually identical to the Stewarts' Nationwide Class: "All persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach announced by the Defendant on or about Aug. 4, 2022." Bachura also asserts the Court has CAFA jurisdiction. On Oct. 17, 2022, the counsel for the Stewart and Buchara Plaintiffs jointly filed a Motion seeking to consolidate the pending actions and to have their counsel's two law firms -- Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, and Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. -- appointed as interim co-lead counsel for the class. The Defendant's counsel has advised the Plaintiffs' counsel that they do not oppose the instant motion or the briefing schedule set forth in the Proposed Order. Judge Kahn finds that the gravamen of the Stewart and Bachura Complaints is the same Data Breach. Both Complaints name the same Defendant. Crucial factual and legal questions regarding the Data Breach and its causes and consequences are common to both actions. Although some variations exist in the parameters of both Complaints, such as the precise causes of action or contours of the class, he say, such minor differences are not enough to preclude consolidation. Moreover, the Defendant does not oppose the request to consolidate. Accordingly, Judge Kahn consolidates the Stewart and Bachura actions, as well as any future related actions, under the docket number of the first filed case, Stewart, No. 22-CV-0890, and under the new title, In re Practice Resources, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the caption accordingly. No further filings will be made in Bachura, No. 22-CV-0905, which will be administratively closed. Next, Judge Kahn deals with the joint request for appointment of interim co-lead counsel for the class. Specifically, the Stewarts and Bachura, through their counsel, propose appointment of Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, and Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., as co-lead interim class counsel. First, Judge Kahn finds that the two law firms seeking appointment as interim co-lead class counsel have spent considerable time, effort, and resources identifying or investigating potential claims in the action. Second, the Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel also possess relevant experience in handling class actions, and litigating large-scale and complex data breach class actions in federal and state court across the country. Third, the Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have particularized knowledge of applicable data breach and privacy law. Fourth, he has no doubt that the Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel will expend the resources necessary to represent the class. Finally, he sees no issue with appointing two firms as interim co-lead counsel for the class. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' joint request for appointment of interim co-lead counsel is granted. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and General Order 12(G)(6), the captioned cases, as well as any future related actions, are consolidated under the docket number of the first filed case, Stewart, No. 22-CV-0890, and under the new title, In re Practice Resources, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the caption of that case, accordingly. The Clerk of the Court will administratively close Bachura, No. 22-CV-0905. No further filings will be made on that docket, but all pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of a consolidated complaint. Any new civil action filed in this District that seeks relief against the Defendant for the Data Breach will be reviewed by the Court on a case-by-case basis in order to determine, at the time of its filing, whether it should be consolidated into the Consolidated Action. Having given due consideration to the relevant factors pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1), the following are appointed and will serve as the Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3): Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE, Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002, and 2. James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. All other counsel are prohibited from taking any action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and putative class in this Consolidated Action without advance authorization from Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel, except for application to modify or be relieved from this Memorandum-Decision and Order. The mere communication of otherwise privileged information among and between the Plaintiffs' counsel will not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product immunity, as the Court recognizes that cooperation by and among counsel is essential for the orderly and expeditious resolution of this litigation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the counsel for all parties are directed to cooperate with one another, wherever possible, to promote the expeditious handling of pretrial proceedings in the Consolidated Action, and related civility principles governing lawyers in the State of New York. A master consolidated complaint be filed in the lead case, In re Practice Resources, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 22-CV-0890, by the Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel within 30 days of the filing date of the Memorandum-Decision and Order. The Defendant is not required to respond to the presently operative complaints in the two cases captione, and will have 30 days from the date on which the Plaintiffs file the consolidated complaint to file its response. In the event that the Defendant's response is a Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs will have 30 days to file their opposition brief, and the Defendant will have 21 days to file its reply brief. The Memorandum-Decision and Order will be served on all named parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddw9uue from Leagle.com. PRAMUKH 113: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Portillo Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SILVESTRE PORTILLO, Plaintiff v. PRAMUKH 113 INC. d/b/a E SMOKE & CONVENIENCE and JAYMIN PATEL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09814 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2022) brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees alleging the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 22, 2021 through September 4, 2022 to perform duties that included cleaning and organizing the convenience store. The Plaintiff claims that he worked more than 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendants. Specifically, he worked from 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday with no days off. However, the Defendant paid him a rate of $15.00 per hour for all hours he worked including work perform after 40 hours. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Plaintiff did not receive wage statements from the Defendants throughout his employment with them, and he was not provided any notice of how he was going to be paid, his rate of pay, his overtime rate of pay, his pay day, or other information that is required under the law, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, for himself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, an injunction requiring the Defendants to pay all statutorily required wages and cease unlawful activity, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just, equitable and proper. Pramukh 113 Inc. d/b/a E Smoke & Convenience operates a convenience store owned by Jaymin Patel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Tel: (516) 634-6340 E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com ROYAL BEAUTY: Aguiar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAYANA AGUIAR, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ROYAL BEAUTY MIAMI INC, and JOHANNA A. PULGAR, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-23733-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2022) alleges the Defendants of willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time hourly-paid receptionist and front desk employee from approximately April 1, 2022 to September 8, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours every week throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Defendants denied her of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Although she did not clock in and out, the Defendants were in complete control of her schedules and could track the number of hors she worked. However, the Defendants did not provide her with paystubs detailing the number of days and hours she has worked, wage rate, employee taxes withheld, etc. Consequently, on or about September 8, 2022, the Plaintiff was forced to leave her employment because she was not properly compensated despite working overtime hours and she suffered a hostile working environment after she complained about her unpaid overtime hours, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this complaint respectfully requesting the Court to declare that her dismissal was an unlawful act of retaliation by the Defendants. The Plaintiff also brings this complaint as a collective action, for herself and all other similarly situated employees, seeking to recover all back wages from the date of discharge to the present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated damages, and an additional liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount awarded as consequential damages, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this suit, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. Royal Beauty Miami Inc. provides luxury salon styling services. Johanna A. Pulgar is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SAKS & COMPANY: Settlement in Alexander Suit Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAQUILLE STEWART ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SAKS & COMPANY LLC; SAKS INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:21-cv-02384-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting final approval of settlement as modified: -- The Court hereby grants final approval of the terms and conditions contained in the Settlement as to the Settlement Classes. -- The Court finds that the terms of the 15 Settlement are within the range of approval, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law. -- The Court hereby makes final its earlier conditional certification of the Settlement 4 Class, which consists of all Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement Class by submitting a timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Class Notice and the Preliminary Approval Order. "Class Members" are defined as: "All current or former non-exempt employees who worked for Saks & Company, LLC (the "Company"), at a Saks Fifth Avenue retail store in California, during the Class Period (April 1, 2017 through preliminary court approval) and excludes all individuals identified by and included in the settlement classes, unless they opt-out, as approved by the court(s) in Alfreda Lewis v. Saks South Coast Leasehold, LLC; Saks & Company, LLC, Case No. 30-2020-01143164-CU-OE- CXC, currently pending in California Superior Court, County of Orange and Maxwell Esposito v. Saks & Company, LLC, currently pending in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles -- Santa Monica, Case No. 20SMCV01252." However, individuals who are members of the Lewis/Esposito Settlement but who also worked for the Company at a Saks Fifth Avenue retail store in California during the Class Period in a role other than Sales Associate and Brand Ambassador, may participate in both settlements. -- The Court hereby confirms the appointment of Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator, and approves its costs of $14,000, which are to be paid from the total Settlement. -- The Court hereby finally appoints Plaintiff Shaquille Stewart Alexander as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. -- The Court finally appoints Eric Lechtzin of Edelson Lechtzin LLP, and Daniel Feder of Law Offices of Daniel Feder as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court finds that the approved Notice of Class Action Settlement constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice. -- The Court finally approves Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of 27.5% of the original $375,000 Gross Settlement Amount, for a total of $103,125 in fees. -- The Court finally approves Class Counsel's request for litigation costs in the amount of $23,800.09. -- The Court finally approves a service award of $5,000 for Plaintiff Stewart Alexander, and finds that the award is fair and reasonable. -- The Court approves the allocation of $20,000 of the Total Settlement Amount to the PAGA Settlement Amount in connection with the release of the claim for civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Saks & Company operates chain of retail department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GOvwNv at no extra charge.[CC] SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Faces Lam Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOTT LAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, CAROLINE ELLISON, and GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-07336-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2022), seeks to recover damages, declaratory and/or injunctive relief stemming from fraudulent and deceitful conduct of the Defendants and their promotion and marketing of FTX Entities' trading platform and their yield-bearing accounts (YBAs). In the fall of 2022, trouble began for the Defendants Bankman-Fried and FTX. On August 19, 2022, a U.S. bank regulator ordered the FTX platform to halt "false and misleading" information about whether funds at the company were insured by the government (they were not). Mr. Lam purchased an unregistered security from FTX in the form of a YBA and funded the account with a sufficient amounts to earn interest on his holdings. He did so after being exposed to some or all of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions regarding the FTX Entities and their related trading platforms as detailed in this complaint, and executed trades in reliance on those misrepresentations and omissions. Separately, according to paperwork filed by Ray with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Alameda Research had $4.1 billion in related-party loans. Among those were $1 billion to Defendant Bankman-Fried. The scale of this Ponzi-scheme-like fraud was matched only by the scale of the publicity campaign employed by Bankman-Fried and the FTX Entities to conjure up an illusion of financial and corporate success. Flush with money from unwitting investors and seeking to further increase their customer reach, Bankman-Fried and the FTX Entities began signing branding deals with sports institutions and advertising on television prolifically to entice new customers, says the suit. As a result, Mr. Lam has allegedly sustained damages approximated at $750,000.00 for which Defendants are liable. Sam Bankman-Fried is a founder and former CEO of FTX.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com kkessler@audetlaw.com - and - Robert L. Lieff, Esq. P.O. Drawer A Rutherford, CA 94573 E-mail: rlieff@lieff.com - and - Edward Lehman, Esq. Jacob Blacklock, Esq. LEHMAN, LEE & XU LLC (Saipan #25977-001-1) c/o LEHMAN, LEE & XU Suite 3313, Tower One, Times Square 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Telephone: (852) 3588-2127 Facsimile: (852) 3588-2088 E-mail: elehman@lehmanlaw.com jblacklock@lehmanlaw.com SC & BP SERVICES: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' Minimum & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Reid, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. SC & BP Services, Inc., SC & BP1 Services, LLC, BP & SC Services Inc., and Brian Powers, Case No. 1:22-cv-09884 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a housekeeper at Highfields Gardens Care Center, from June 2020 to August 15, 2022. The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants would allegedly only pay the Plaintiff for some - but not all hours worked, by forcing the Plaintiff to "clock-in" no earlier than 7:00 a.m., despite the fact that the Plaintiff would start their shift at 6:00 a.m. As a result, the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, was forced to work off the clock, without pay, during this period, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY York 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hoffower's IRPA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KATE HOFFOWER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAMLESS CONTACTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 C 2079 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Hoffower has filed a complaint against Seamless on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated persons. She alleges that Seamless operates the website www.seamless.ai. Seamless advertises that in return for a paid subscription, a subscriber will receive access to profiles of individuals that include their names, contact information, job titles, places of work, cities of residence, and other personal information, including photographs in some instances. It represents that its database will allow subscribers, which include salespeople and marketers, to "connect directly with your ideal customers" and "find all your prospect's contact information -- including emails, direct dials, and more." According to Hoffower, Seamless offers potential subscribers a free trial that allows them to search for, view, and download a limited number of profiles, until they have expended all their "credits." She says that in response to a search for her name, Seamless displayed search results showing her personal information, a counter showing how many credits remained in the free trial, and an "upgrade" button that promoted the trial user to purchase a subscription to obtain more credits. Hoffower also alleges that once the trial user has expended its entire allowance of credits, the user, when trying to view or download additional profiles, receives messages prompting it to purchase a paid subscription. A paid subscription allows the user to, among other things, download of a particular number of profiles per month, depending on the subscription level purchased. Hoffower alleges she does not know how Seamless obtained her personal information. It's possible, she suggests, that this was obtained from other available sources to whose use of the information she consented. But Hoffower alleges that she did not consent to the commercial use of her identity or information to promote the sale of subscriptions to Seamless's website. She alleges that Seamless has violated her intellectual property and privacy rights. Hoffower filed the suit in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). She asserts claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, 765 ILCS 1075/30(a), and for unjust enrichment. Seamless has moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Kennelly denies Seamless' motion to dismiss for the seven reasons. First, Seamless' contention that Hoffower lacks standing has no merit. There is a common-law analogue for her asserted injury, and the harm is the sort that traditionally has been considered to provide the basis for a lawsuit. Article III of the Constitution requires nothing more to allege an injury in fact. Second, Hoffower has sufficiently alleged unconsented commercial use of her identity. Third, it's not in the least bit apparent that Seamless's website qualifies as an "original" work and Hoffower's claim under the IRPA is directed at the use of her identity and profile in commercial advertisements, not in the product or service itself. Fourth, what Hoffower alleges Seamless offers does not constitute a "non-commercial purpose," and given the allegations in the complaint it is rather strained to refer to her personal information as "news" or anything involving "public affairs." Fifth, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is inappropriate. Sixth, with regard to the IRPA claim, Seamless' argument for immunity under the federal Communications Decency Act lacks merit. Finally, because the Court has overruled Seamless' arguments for dismissal of the IRPA claim, its parallel argument for dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim fails as well. The Defendant is directed to answer the complaint by no later than Dec. 20, 2022. The telephonic hearing set for Nov. 23, 2022 is vacated and reset to Jan. 31, 2023 at 9:10 a.m., using call-in number 888-684-8852, access code 746-1053. A joint status report concerning the status of discovery and any settlement discussions is to be filed on Jan. 24, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5c9s5u2x from Leagle.com. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Denies Fleming's Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLI FLEMING, on behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-12092-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In this proposed class action, the Plaintiffs assert that Select Portfolio Servicing ("SPS") and eight separate trusts wrongfully foreclosed on their residential properties by sending pre-foreclosure form letters that fail to comply with the terms of their mortgages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, Section 21. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence (Count II) but do not press class certification on that theory. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following proposed class: The Unlawful Foreclosure Class: (i) Massachusetts residents; (ii) Whose Massachusetts properties were foreclosed on pursuant to mortgages that contained the following or a materially similar paragraph: 22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender will give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower's breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument. The notice will specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument and sale of the Property. The notice will further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. If the default is not cured on or before the date specified in the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may invoke the STATUTORY POWER OF SALE and any other remedies permitted by Applicable Law. Lender will be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this Section 22, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of title evidence; (iii) Who, prior to foreclosure, were sent notices by Select Portfolio Servicing pursuant to said paragraph entitled 90 Day Right to Cure or 150-Day Right to Cure, that failed to state that the mortgagor had a right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration and/or a right to bring a court action; (iv) Who were sent separately dated untitled letters that stated that the mortgagor had a right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration and commencement of foreclosure proceedings. SPS is a residential mortgage servicing company with a principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank NA, U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank National Association, and Wilmington Trust, NA, in their various forms, are trustees of securitized mortgaged-backed trusts, with principal places of businesses in Santa Ana, California; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Wilmington, Delaware, respectively. Between Jan. 9, 2016 and June 29, 2017, SPS sent to the Plaintiffs -- all Massachusetts residents -- a form default/right to cure notice purportedly complying with Paragraph 22 of their mortgages. These notices did not inform them of their right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration" and their "right to bring a court action." On the same day, SPS also sent to each representative plaintiff an "Untitled Letter", without headings, that stated each mortgagee had a "right to reinstate after acceleration and commencement of foreclosure proceedings" and that they had a "right to bring a court action." The Plaintiffs allege that the use of "and" in these untitled letters is misleading, because it suggested to homeowners that they needed to wait until the commencement of foreclosure proceedings to contest the default or reinstate their mortgages. Such a failure to strictly comply with Paragraph 22, they argue, would render these accelerations, foreclosures, and sales unauthorized. They allege that the violation caused considerable damages, including loss in the value of their homes and foreclosure costs and fees. They do not seek to void the title of third-party purchasers. The Defendants deny that the notices are faulty and have filed affirmative defenses and counterclaims to set off and recoup the deficiency balances owed on the mortgages after foreclosure. Judge Saris explains that a class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In addition to these four prerequisites, the class must also satisfy at least one requirement of Rule 23(b). Rule 23(b)(3) requires the Court to find that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Finally, the First Circuit adds an extra-textual ascertainability requirement to the class certification analysis. The definition of the class must be 'definite,' that is, the standards must allow the class members to be ascertainable. SPS contests certification of the proposed class on the grounds of commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. The Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that all Rule 23 requirements have been satisfied. Judge Saris finds that (i) the proposed class is sufficiently numerous; (ii) the question of law is common, specifically, whether the acceleration default notices complied strictly with the terms of their mortgages pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, Section 21; (iii) the Plaintiffs have met the burden of typicality on the claims even if the counterclaims of recoupment are not identical; and (iv) the Plaintiff counsel is a subject matter expert in the underlying foreclosure issues. However, Judge Saris finds that the problem is that the question of individual damages overwhelms any common question of law. She finds that individual damage issues defeat class certification relief because a fair market value analysis is inherently an individualized analysis. In short, the damages sought after by the Plaintiffs for the value of loss of property, use and occupancy value, moving costs, rents, costs, and expenses to live elsewhere, cancellation costs and fees, all require individualized analyses that make a class action not the superior method for fairly or efficiently adjudicating the controversy. For these reasons, Judge Saris denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4shz7nah from Leagle.com. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLI FLEMING, on behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated, et al., v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-12092-PBS (D. Mass.), the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following proposed class: The Unlawful Foreclosure Class: (i) Massachusetts residents; (ii) Whose Massachusetts properties were foreclosed on pursuant to mortgages that contained the following or a materially similar paragraph: "22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower's breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument. The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument and sale of the Property. The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. If the default is not cured on or before the date specified in the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may invoke the STATUTORY POWER OF SALE and any other remedies permitted by Applicable Law. The Court finds that individual damage issues defeat class certification relief because a fair market value analysis is inherently an individualized analysis. In this proposed class action, Plaintiffs assert that Select Portfolio Servicing and eight separate trusts wrongfully foreclosed on their residential properties by sending pre-foreclosure form letters that fail to comply with the terms of their mortgages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. Select Portfolio is a nationally recognized mortgage servicer specializing in the servicing of single-family residential mortgages. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Vrr1woat no extra charge.[CC] SEMINOLE ASPHALT: Underpays Manual Workers, Willis et al. Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT WILLIS, an Individual, JAMES WILLIAMS, an Individual, JOHNNY WALTERS, an Individual, KENNETH SMITH, an Individual, CHAYANNE MERCADO, an individual, and all other similarly situated individuals under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs v. SEMINOLE ASPHALT PAVING, INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-02125 (M.D. Fla., November 15, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who have worked as manual laborers for the Defendant, assert that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week throughout their employment with the Defendant. Specifically, they were required to work 8 to 12 hours for 5 to 6 days in a row. However, the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes per day from their meal period although they were required to work through their meals and were not completely relieved of their duties for a meal. In addition, the Defendant did not keep records of their hours worked. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated manual workers were not properly compensated the appropriate overtime premium for all of their hours worked, says the suit. Seminole Asphalt Paving, Inc. is a full-service commercial asphalt paving company serving the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deront T. Roberson, Jr., Esq. Aaron C. Roberson, Esq. ROBERSON & ROBERSON P.A. 16057 Tampa Palms Blvd. W. #231 Tampa, FL 33647 Tel: (813) 808-3688 E-mail: d.roberson@robersonemploymentlaw.com a.roberson@robersonemploymentlaw.com Info@robersonemploymentlaw.com SLEEP NUMBER: Bid to Dismiss Steamfitters Suit Pending in MN Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sleep Number Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the bid to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for the Steamfitters Shareholder Class Suit is pending at the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On December 14, 2021, purported Sleep Number shareholder, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds (Steamfitters), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the District of Minnesota) on behalf of all purchasers of Sleep Number common stock between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, inclusive, against Sleep Number, Shelly Ibach and David Callen. Steamfitters alleges material misstatements and omissions in certain of Sleep Number's public disclosures during the purported class period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses and equitable/injunctive or other relief as deemed appropriate by the District of Minnesota. On February 14, 2022, a second purported Sleep Number shareholder, Ricardo Dario Schammas, moved for appointment as lead plaintiff in the action. On March 24, 2022, the District of Minnesota heard argument on Schammas's motion, and subsequently appointed Steamfitters and Schammas as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (together, Co-Lead Plaintiffs). On July 19, 2022, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, like the predecessor complaint, asserts claims against Sleep Number, Shelly Ibach, and David Callen under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Co-Lead Plaintiffs purport to assert these claims on behalf of all purchasers of Sleep Number common stock between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on September 19, 2022, which motion remains pending. Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR), together with its subsidiaries, provides sleep solutions and services in the United States. It designs, manufactures, markets, retails, and services beds, bases, and bedding accessories under the Sleep Number name. The company was formerly known as Select Comfort Corporation and changed its name to Sleep Number Corporation in November 2017. Sleep Number Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consumer Claims Subject to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- Smiledirectclub, 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 the administrative AAA arbitrator confirmed that consumer claims are subject to binding arbitration on an individual basis in the case captioned Ciccio, et al. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845. In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.). The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's advertising. Following a proactive voluntary dismissal by the majority of consumer plaintiffs, one consumer has since sought to rejoin the Middle District of Tennessee litigation or, in the alternative, to intervene, which the Court granted. That ruling has been appealed, and the Court stayed the consumer claims pending the appeal. On June 25, 2021, the appellate court reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to order the intervening plaintiff to mandatory binding arbitration. On September 20, 2022, the administrative AAA arbitrator confirmed that the consumer claims are subject to binding arbitration on an individual basis. All remaining consumer claims remain stayed. On October 13, 2021, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order, effectively staying merits discovery on the provider plaintiff claims, and setting deadlines of March 30, 2022, to complete class certification fact discovery and September 2, 2022, to complete briefing on motions regarding class certification. Class certification fact discovery was substantially completed on March 30, 2022 with the briefing on class certification currently stayed pending further discovery being sought by the Company. The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend against this action vigorously. SmileDirectClub, Inc. a teledentistry company. The company was co-founded in 2014 by Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell. It is based in Nashville, Tennessee. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Discovery Commences in 7 Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Smiledirectclub, 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 discovery has commenced in the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour, Wei Wei, Andre, Ginsberg and Franchi stockholder class action complaints. From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee, Michigan, and New York against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, certain of its current or former officers, and the underwriters of its IPO. The following complaints have been filed to date: * Mancour v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed 9/27/19) * Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court filed 9/30/19) * Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN Circuit Court filed 10/4/19) * Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19) * Andre v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19) * Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed 10/23/19) * Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-962 (M.D. Tenn. filed 10/29/19) * Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB (Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19) * Sasso v. Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19) * Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., No. 652603/2020 (Supreme Ct. N.Y. Cty. filed June 19, 2020) The complaints all allege, among other things, that the registration statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company’s initial public offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. All the actions are in the preliminary stages. The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and is vigorously defending against these actions. In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions were consolidated and re-captioned In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery Court). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 20, 2019, and Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on February 10, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court denied that motion. Defendants subsequently moved for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal of that decision. On June 22, 2020, the court granted that motion. On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals, which was denied. On September 21, 2020, Defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, which Defendants opposed on January 25, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs class certification. The Company filed its notice of appeal on May 4, 2021. That appeal was fully briefed as of October 6, 2021. All trial court proceedings are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. On March 18, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims but affirmed the grant of certification. The trial court stay has been lifted and discovery has commenced in the trial court. The Andre and Ginsberg actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where they were consolidated with the Franchi action. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020, and Defendants moved to dismiss the action on March 23, 2020. That motion remains pending. While that motion was pending, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint, which Plaintiffs filed on March 31, 2021. Defendants' motion to dismiss the new complaint was due on or before May 14, 2021. That motion was fully briefed as of July 19, 2021. On September 30, 2022, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Discovery will therefore now commence in these proceedings. On October 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs in this action filed a motion to intervene in the State Court action for purposes of discovery and settlement. In the Nurlybayev action, on January 10, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the entire action in favor of the related actions pending in Tennessee, which motion was granted and the case was dismissed on February 26, 2020. On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Nurlybayev filed a substantially similar action in New York state court. On August 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that action, which the Court granted on May 25, 2021. On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On March 2, 2022, the Company filed its opposition. Plaintiff filed their reply brief on March 11, 2022. On April 5, 2022, the Court heard argument on the appeal and on May 5, 2022 the Court of Appeals granted the Company's motion to dismiss. In the Sasso action, Plaintiff agreed to stay the action pending resolution of any motions to dismiss in any of the related actions. The Court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to that effect on January 22, 2020. SmileDirectClub, Inc. a teledentistry company. The company was co-founded in 2014 by Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell. It is based in Nashville, Tennessee. SNAP INC: Dembrowsk Suit Seeks to Invalidate Charter Amendment -------------------------------------------------------------- SHERRIE DEMBROWSKI, on behalf of herself and similarly situated holders of Class A Common Stock of Snap Inc v. SNAP INC., Case No. 2022-1042 (Del. Ch., Nov. 17, 2022) seeks judicial relief to invalidate the Charter Amendment because it was not validly approved by the Class A Common Stockholders. On August 24, 2022, Snap approved the Charter Amendment and adopted it by written consent of the Class C Common Stockholders, purporting to eliminate one of the "powers, preferences or special rights" appurtenant to ownership of Class A Common Stock -- the power to seek relief for reckless or grossly negligent conduct among the Company's officers. Snap disclosed that the Charter Amendment was adopted following Board approval and submission of written consents of 231,626,943 shares of Class C Common Stock, and the Company said that the Charter Amendment "has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law." The Charter Amendment, however, is invalid. The Charter Amendment runs afoul of Section 242(b)(2) because the vote of Snap's Class A Common Stockholders was not solicited, much less obtained, the Plaintiff contends. Snap is a camera company, best known for its flagship product, Snapchat, a mobile camera application which allows users to communicate using photos and short videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Sara D. Swartzwelder, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Wasa Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wasa Medical Putative Federal securities class suit. On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the Company, Dr. Ji, and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D. The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees. On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same relief. On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order consolidating the cases and appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff ("Plaintiff"), and lead counsel. On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's scheduling order. Pursuant to that scheduling order, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 20, 2021 and Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 2, 2021. The defendants' reply was filed on August 4, 2021. On or about November 18, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On December 30, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on February 7, 2022, and the defendants filed their reply on February 28, 2022. On April 11, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. On June 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. On June 3, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and the case was closed. On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641). On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff/Appellant filed an opening brief. The defendants/appellees’ answering brief is due on December 2, 2022. Appellant may also file an optional reply brief within 21 days of appellees' answering brief. The Company is defending these matters vigorously. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The company is based in San Diego, California. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Revision of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask that class certification briefing schedule be modified as follows: -- Further Case Management Jan. 26, 2023 Conference: -- Deadline to Move for Class March 14, 2023 Certification: -- Opposition: May 9, 2023 -- Reply: June 27, 2023 -- Hearing: July 27, 2023 A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OCZDcCat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason M. Erlich, Esq. ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C. 180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380 Oakland CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 390-9140 Facsimile: (510) 369-3876 E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com - and - Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com The Defendant is represented by: Annie Lau, Esq. Megan F. Clark, Esq. Kevin L. Quan, Esq. Daniel Farrington, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com mclark@fisherphillips.com kquan@fisherphillips.com dfarrington@fisherphillips.com STATE FARM: Amended Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Nichols ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order amended preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings December 12, 2022 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- The motion for class May 26, 2023 certification shall be filed by: -- Opposition to Class July 25, 2023 Certification and Expert Reports in Opposition to Class Certification due by: -- Reply in Support of Class Sept. 7, 2023 Certification Due by: When Defendant's auto insurance policyholders' vehicles are declared a "total loss," the Defendant agrees to pay the "actual cash value" of the vehicle. One way Defendant decides how much it needs to pay is by identifying the advertised price of comparable motor vehicles. However, Defendant reduces the advertised price of some comparable motor vehicle for "typical negotiation." The Plaintiff alleges that the "typical negotiation" deduction is not permitted by applicable law or the contract and by definition results in customers not receiving the "actual cash value" of their vehicles. Specifically, the typical negotiation deduction is premised on outdated fictions and results in consumers being paid "an artificially lower value" for their vehicles. State Farm offers insurance products for auto, motorcycles, sport and leisure vehicle, home, renters, condo, health, disability, professional liability, workers compensation and business owners. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ECOFznat no extra charge.[CC] STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILAFALAM PRICE and ELEK DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05083-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:: -- The parties shall comply with their Dec. 16, 2022 Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., initial disclosure obligations by: -- No additional parties may be joined Dec. 23, 2022 or pleadings amended after: -- All fact discovery must be March 31, 2023 completed by: -- The Plaintiff's identification of April 21, 2023 experts and disclosure of expert testimony conforming to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., must occur by: -- The Defendant's identification of May 26, 2023 experts and disclosure of expert testimony must occur by: -- The following motion will be served by the dates indicated below: Motion for Class Certification: -- Motion served by: April 21, 2023 -- Opposition served by: May 26, 2023 -- Reply served by: June 16, 2023 Sterling provides human resource services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iemDlWat no extra charge.[CC] SUNRISE CREDIT: Munoz Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letters --------------------------------------------------------------- ELENA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017131 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., November 17, 2022) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a collection letter on or about September 29, 2022 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt, which she incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes via an unsecured line of credit from the creditor Santander Consumer USA, Inc. The Defendant's collection letter, however, fails to identify the name of the creditor to whom the Consumer debt was owed on the itemization date, thereby failing to meet the requirement by Code of Federal Regulations Section 1006.34(b)(3). Thus, the Defendant's collection letter represented an itemization date which falsely represents the amount of the Consumer Debt because the Represented Itemization date is not an itemization date permitted by the law. The Plaintiff requests the Court, for herself and all other similarly situated individuals, to enter a judgment against the Defendant awarding them statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Sunrise Credit Services Inc. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Strike Ward Renewed Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an individual, SACORA BESABE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS (SVH), a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), SVH will move the Court on Jan. 27, 2023 for an order striking Plaintiffs' "Renewed" Motions for Class Certification and Collective Certification. The Defendant contends that they submits the motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion is both substantively and procedurally improper, as it does nothing to address the concerns raised in the Court's Order Denying Certification, it does not rest on any new evidence and law that was unavailable to Plaintiffs at the time they first moved for class certification in April 2021, and it violates a series of Local Rules and this Court's Standing Order, as Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file the motion, did not properly meet and confer, did not originally properly notice the motion, and did not adhere to the Court's page limits. The Parties have met and conferred regarding Defendant's Motion to Strike in accord with the Court's Standing Order. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ODCJBMat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. Teresa W. Ghali, Esq. Amanda Osowski, Esq. GBG LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: tomgeidt@gbgllp.com teresaghali@gbgllp.com amandaosowski@gbgllp.com SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Suspend Class Cert. Bid Briefing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an individual, SACORA BESABE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to first consider and resolve the Defendant's concurrently filed Motion to Strike, set for hearing on January 27, 2023, before setting further deadlines on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion. Thus, the Defendant requests that the Court take off calendar the January 27, 2023 hearing (and all related briefing deadlines) on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion, and instead set the following schedule on these two interrelated motions as follows: -- Hearing on Defendant's January 27, 2023 Motion to Strike: -- Case Management Conference February 3, 2023 to Set Deadlines for Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification (including opposition, reply, and hearing), if Defendant's Motion to Strike is Not Granted: A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F6vdMXat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. Teresa W. Ghali, Esq. Amanda Osowski, Esq. GBG LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: tomgeidt@gbgllp.com teresaghali@gbgllp.com amandaosowski@gbgllp.com SYNGENTA CROP: Monopolizes Crop Products, Shelby Farms Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY FARMS, LLC, HANNA FARMS, LLC, CHOCTAW FARMS, LLC, and G&P FARMS PARTNERSHIP v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION, BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP, NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Case No. 1:22-cv-02226-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges that the Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in the form of overcharges incurred to them and the Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Defendants' actions allowed the Manufacturer Defendants to maintain a monopoly and exclude competition in the Relevant AIs market(s) and to artificially maintain market share and prices, says the suit. Syngenta is a provider of agricultural science and technology, in particular seeds and pesticides with its management headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636 2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and – Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (501) 952-8558 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us - and – Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. Stephen H. Schwartz, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com sschwartz@kohnswift.co - and – Randall B. Weill, Esq. Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: rweill@preti.com ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com TEVA PHARMA: Court Amends Class Cert. Schedule in Halman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT AND PENSION FUNDS LTD. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karen Spencer Marston entered an order amending class certification schedule as follows: -- Opposition to Motion for Class December 20, 2022 Certification: -- Deadline for Defendants to Produce December 23, 2022 Materials Relied upon by Expert(s) in forming his/her Opinion: -- Completion of Depositions of any January 20, 2023 Defendant Expert(s) in Connection with Class Certification: -- Reply in Further Support of Motion February 17, 2023 for Class Certification: -- Evidentiary Hearing To be set by the Court Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company that specializes primarily in generic drugs. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EFK7s2at no extra charge.[CC] TIOGA DOWNS: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Potter ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Potter v. Tioga Downs Racetrack, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00869-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Rovric entered an order: -- Any motion to join any person as December 22, 2022 a party to this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading December 22, 2022 in this action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file February 6, 2023. a status report on or before: -- Mandatory Disclosures are to be November 15, 2022 exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands December 22, 2022 must be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is October 31, 2023 to be completed on or before: -- Class certification motion is be May 26, 2023 filed on or before: Tioga Downs operates as a casino hotel. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OGZSDvat no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED: Shampoo, Foam Products Contain Benzene, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA SIMMONS, ANSLEIGH WALTERS, MARYKAY THROWER, JACKIE SPIVEY, LAURA MARTSON, and CHRISSIE HUMENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-23376-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., Nov. 17, 2022) is a class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs and the class who purchased and used Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TRESemme, and/or Bed Head dry shampoo or foam shampoo aerosol products that have been found to be contaminated and/or adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen, resulting in a nationwide product recall. The presence of benzene in the Defendant's products was not disclosed in the products' label other otherwise made known to consumers, in violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). By recalling the Products, the Defendant admits that it made a "mistake" and that it was "necessary" to recall the Products from the marketplace in order to "protect consumers' safety" due to the contamination of raw materials and/or mislabeling, says the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in conduct that is likely to deceive members of the public. This conduct includes failing to disclose the level of benzene contamination in the recalled Products and failing to disclose whether any of its other non recalled dry shampoo and/or foam shampoo products contain benzene, and if so, at what level. This information is important to consumers, including the Plaintiffs, because "no safe level of benzene can be recommended" so even "trace amounts" of benzene poses a health risk, added the suit. The Plaintiffs and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendant's alleged misconduct and they seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the product(s) they purchased. Unilever produces and supplies fast moving consumer goods in food, and home and personal care product.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Jason Richards, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: jrichards@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Li Class Action ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUN SHI LI v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States; UR M. JADDOU, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security; PHYLLIS COVEN, Director for the District of New York United States Citizenship & Immigration Services; SUSAN QUINTANA, Director for Field Office of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-10601-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman, entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The Defendants seek to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. Li claims that USCIS's decisions denying her N-400 applications violated the APA because they were "arbitrary, capricious and evidenced an abuse of discretion." The Defendants argue that an APA claim is foreclosed because Plaintiff has an "adequate remedy" through 8 U.S.C. section 1421(c). The Defendants also argue that, because Li did not respond to Defendants' APA argument, the Court should consider Li's APA claim abandoned. The Plaintiff brings this action seeking de novo review of the denial by United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") of her application for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the country's naturalization and immigration system. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VnzH6Xat no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Extension for Summary Judgment Filing Junked ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dimitryuk v. University Of Miami, Case No. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion following class certification ruling. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish the extraordinary circumstances required to extend the dispositive motion deadline. On September 13, 2021, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadlines and re-set the trial date and pre-trial deadlines; the deadline for filing dispositive motions was extended to September 23, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the Court granted in part another joint motion to extend pre-trial deadlines. The discovery, expert disclosure, and motion for class certification deadlines were extended but the motion was expressly denied for the remaining pre-trial deadlines. On September 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion seeking to extend the deadline for filing their motion for summary judgment. They propose filing the motion for summary judgment 28 days after the Court rules on the pending Motion for Class Certification. The University of Miami is a private research university in Coral Gables, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gyRyJuat no extra charge.[CC] USAA SERVICES: Court Extends Class Status-Related Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGATA DROZDZ, an individual and TEAKRE VEST, an individual, v. USAA SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01010-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order extending the deadlines related to class certification as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec.16, 2022 Feb. 10, 2023 Class Certification and any supporting expert reports: -- Deadline for completion Jan. 27, 2023 March 24, 2023 of expert discovery relating to class certification issues -- Plaintiffs' expert(s) -- Defendants' Response to March 3, 2023 April 28, 2023 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and any supporting expert reports: -- Deadline for completion April 7, 2023 June 2, 2023 of expert discovery relating to class certification issues -- Defendants' expert -- Plaintiffs' Reply in May 5, 2023 June 3, 2023 Support of Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EJB3SOat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Toby J.Marshall, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206)319-5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Young-Ji Ham, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 312-3057 E-mail: youngji@washinjurylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jay Williams, Esq. Paula M. Ketcham, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5629 Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 E-mail: jay.williams@afslaw.com paula.ketcham@afslaw.com - and - Michael A Moore, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP, Esq. 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154-1051 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 Email:mmoore@corrcronin.com VAIL RESORTS: Court Recommends Denial of Quint Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DEAN QUINT, JOHN LINN, and MARK MOLINA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03569-DDD-GPG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to Interrogatories; -- recommending that the District Judge bifurcate the state- law claims (Claims 5-22) from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims (Claims 1-4), and stay all further proceedings regarding those state-law claims until the conclusion of proceedings relating to the FLSA claims; -- In the alternative, recommending that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be denied; -- Recommending that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Disseminate Notice be granted in part, insofar as this Court recommends that notice be approved and disseminated as to all Snow Sports Instructors employed by Vail nationwide, and denying in part in all other respects; -- denying as moot Vail's Motion to Strike; -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents; and -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories The Plaintiff Mark Molina worked for Vail as a Ticket Scanner at Beaver Creek resort. The Plaintiffs allege that, due to several different Vail policies, they have not been paid for all hours they worked and have not been paid overtime premiums as required by state and federal law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that Vail fails to pay them for time they spend traveling by shuttle bus between employee parking areas and their duty stations, during which time they perform work-related duties. Vail Resorts is an American mountain resort company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u1oAoz at no extra charge.[CC] VALLEY SERVICING: Broussard Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA BROUSSARD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. VALLEY SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-02649-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., November 17, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant faxed a "Wage Assignment Demand Notice" to the Plaintiff's employer on March 30, 2022 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff. The alleged debt was an online payday loan that was purportedly obtained by the Plaintiff in the amount of $875 on or about October 1, 2020 for personal and household expenses, and unfortunately fell behind on payments, after which a balance of $1,539.79 was alleged owed. The alleged debt was assigned to the Defendant for collection. However, in the Defendant's "Wage Assignment Demand Notice," the Defendant falsely represented that it had the legal right to garnish and/or assign a portion of the Plaintiff's wages to an online lender, which act is not legal in Florida. Despite the illegality, the Plaintiff's employer withheld $419.22 from her wages and sent those funds via ACH to be applied to the Debt. In addition, the Defendant has disclosed derogatory, legally-protected information about the Plaintiff's purported Debt to her employer with her authorization or consent. Moreover, the Defendant is allegedly not a licensed consumer collection agency in Florida and has gone to great lengths to conceal its true identity and location, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have suffered actual damages in the form of amounts withheld from their paychecks. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an award of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Valley Servicing is a debt collector that regularly collets on behalf of online payday lenders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Morgan, Esq. Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. Bridget L. Scarangella, Esq. Carolyne Moomaw, Esq. Philip R. Goldberg, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 1614 n. 19th St. Tampa, FL 33605 Tel: (813) 567-1230 Fax: (855) 500-0705 E-mail: BMorgan@SeraphLegal.com BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com TBonan@SeraphLegal.com BScarangella@SeraphLegal.com CMoomaw@SeraphLegal.com PGoldberg@SeraphLegal.com VISA INC: Challenges Jurisdiction in Israeli Interchange Fees Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Visa 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 16, 2022, that the Company filed a motion challenging jurisdiction in the Israel Interchange Fees class suit. On November 14, 2021, a motion to certify a class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the Israel Central District Court. The motion asserts that interchange fees on cross-border transactions in Israel and the Honor All Cards rule are anti-competitive and seeks damages and injunctive relief. On July 3, 2022, Visa filed a motion challenging jurisdiction. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 16, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from Interchange Fees class suits. On June 1, 2022, two class action claims were filed against Visa with the CAT on behalf of UK businesses that accepted Visa-branded payment cards at any time since June 1, 2016, alleging that UK domestic, intra-European Economic Area, and inter-regional interchange fees on commercial credit cards, and inter-regional interchange fees on consumer cards, are anti-competitive. The Europe retrospective responsibility plan covers liabilities and losses relating to the covered period, which generally refers to the period before the closing of the Visa Europe acquisition. The full scope of potential damages is not yet known because not all Merchant claims have been served and Visa has substantial defenses. However, the claims that have been issued, served and/or preserved, seek several billion dollars in damages. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 16, 2022, that the National ATM Council class suit is still pending at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar Mastercard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on October 1, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal the district court's decision. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Settlement in Consumer Class Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 16, 2022, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted plaintiff's final approval motion for the Consumer Class Action settlement. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in each case, and on October 1, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal the district court's decision. On August 8, 2022, in the case in which the three financial institutions were named, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement with those institutions and entered final judgments of dismissal as to those institutions. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WALMART INC: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Feb. 6, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR GUZMAN and JAMES MARSHALL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order approving joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing and hearing dates: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Motion for Class Certification be continued from December 5, 2022 to February 6, 2023; 2. The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class be continued from January 16, 2023, to March 20, 2023; 3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification be continued from January 30, 2023, to April 3, 2023; and 4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be continued from February 8, 2023 to April 19, 2023. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EY0LURat no extra charge.[CC] WASH PLUS: Underpays Car Wash Machine Technicians, Mendez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- TED MENDEZ and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WASH PLUS, LLC, and MICHAEL D. KELCH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-62112-WPD (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action to recover money damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time and hourly-paid car wash machine technician from approximately February 5, 2021 to May 26, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not compensate him for all hours he worked despite regularly and consistently working more than 40 hours weekly. Specifically, the Plaintiff regularly worked an average of 57.5 hours, but the Defendants paid him less than 40 hours only and without overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants allegedly paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated technicians for billable hours only. In addition, The Defendants did not allow them to document the actual number of hours they have worked, including travel time, which is part of their principal activity that must be counted as hours worked. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful employment practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated technicians were not paid for a substantial number of hours at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as established by federal and state law, says the Plaintiff. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated technicians, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages with interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to Federal Law. Wash Plus, LLC is a seller of car wash systems. Michael D. Kelch is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WATERWIPES USA: Baby Wipes Not Biodegradable, Pace Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Ann Pace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WaterWipes (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09816 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022) seeks to challenge Defendant's false and deceptive practices in the marketing and sale of its purported biodegradable wipes. Specifically, the Defendant has sold the Wipes with front label representations that lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Wipes are biodegradable. These representations include the unqualified phrase "100% Biodegradable Wipes," along with the image of a green leaf. The Plaintiff purchased the WaterWipes Biodegradable Original Baby Wipes from Amazon.com. The Plaintiff also customarily deposed of the Wipes by placing them in the trash (which means the Wipes ultimately ended up in landfills and/or incinerators). The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Wipes and paid a price premium based upon their reliance on Defendant's Biodegradable Representations. Had Plaintiff and other consumers been aware that the Wipes will not biodegrade within a reasonable period of time, they would not have purchased the Wipes or would have paid significantly less for them, the Plaintiff says. The Federal Trade Commission and its Green Guides further supports Plaintiff's allegations that she and other consumers have been misled by Defendant's Biodegradable Representations. These Biodegradable Representations are false and misleading because the Wipes will not completely decompose within a reasonable period of time after customary disposal, the suit added. WaterWipes specializes in producing baby wipes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com - and - Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Solis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00878 (D.N.M., November 17, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful timekeeping and payroll policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant since October 2016as a non-exempt and salaried worker. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to correctly and timely compensate her and other similarly situated workers for all the hours they worked. This started when the Defendant's timekeeping software and hardware it used suffered a disruption in service due to a ransomware attack on or about December 11, 2021. Consequently, the Defendant failed to accurately track the hours that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers have worked. As a result, the Defendant paid them less than the total hours they have worked in the workweek, including overtime hours. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated workers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, penalties, and exemplary damages, litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. provides health care programs for persons that are committed in civil and criminal correctional facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Tel: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com WHEATLEIGH CORP: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLETA MONGUE, v. THE WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L. LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON, and MARC WILHELM, Case No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement agreement insofar as the court orders that the parties' settlement agreement will be enforced and denying insofar as Plaintiff seeks an award of fees in connection with this motion. Nonetheless, the court is not convinced that the record supports an award of attorney's fees where Plaintiff's counsel did not file an affidavit regarding the events leading up to the filing of the motion to compel on which the court might rest a finding of bad faith or quantifying and justifying the amount of fees and costs. Indeed, although Plaintiff's counsel makes a passing reference to Simon's declaration, the only argument advanced by Plaintiff in support of an award of fees is that the court stated that it would entertain a request for fees if Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Plaintiff is a former wait staff employee of the defendant The Wheatleigh, which was owned and/or operated by the remaining defendants L. Linfield Simon, Susan Simon, and Marc Wilhelm. The Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, by failing to pay her an overtime premium, paying her less than the federal minimum wage, not providing proper notice before utilizing a tip credit, and operating an illegal tip pool. The Plaintiff, though counsel, filed this action on June 20, 2018. This is one of four cases Plaintiff's counsel filed against Defendants. The Plaintiff's counsel also filed a complaint on behalf of Mark Brown, a former guest services manager, on April 11, 2018; Christian Perreault Hamel, a former restaurant manager, on July 17, 2018; and Mary Harris, a former housekeeping manager, on July 17, 2018 each alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and cognate Massachusetts wage laws based on their misclassification as managers who were exempt from overtime compensation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Va6kWdat no extra charge.[CC] WHEATLEIGH CORP: Mongue's Bid to Enforce Settlement Agreement OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ARLETA MONGUE, Plaintiff v. THE WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L. LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON, and MARC WILHELM, Defendants, Civil No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Mongue is a former wait staff employee of Wheatleigh, which was owned and/or operated by the remaining Defendants L. Linfield Simon, Susan Simon, and Marc Wilhelm. She alleges in her amended complaint that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., by failing to pay her an overtime premium, paying her less than the federal minimum wage, not providing proper notice before utilizing a tip credit, and operating an illegal tip pool. The Plaintiff also asserts state law claims against these Defendants under Massachusetts wage laws. Specifically, she claims that the Defendants violated the Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Sections 1, 7, by paying her the service rate when she should have received full minimum wage due to the Defendants' unlawful distribution of its tip pools, the un-tipped tasks to which she was assigned, and the Defendants' failure to provide proper written notice before utilizing the service rate; the Massachusetts Tips Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 152A, by unlawfully distributing wages from the tip pool to non-wait staff employees and supervisors; and the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150, by failing to timely pay wages. Presently before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff, though counsel, filed this action on June 20, 2018. This is one of four cases the Plaintiff's counsel filed against the Defendants. The Plaintiff's counsel also filed a complaint on behalf of Mark Brown, a former guest services manager, on April 11, 2018 (Case No. 3:18-cv-30056-KAR); Christian Perreault Hamel, a former restaurant manager, on July 17, 2018 (Case No. 3:18-cv-30113-KAR); and Mary Harris, a former housekeeping manager, on July 17, 2018 (Case No. 3:18-cv-30114-KAR) (referred to collectively as the "Individual Cases"). Brown, Hamel, and Harris (referred to collectively as the "Individual Plaintiffs") each alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and cognate Massachusetts wage laws based on their misclassification as managers who were exempt from overtime compensation. On June 26, 2020, with leave of court, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting class claims against the Defendants. She filed a motion for certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) limited to her state law claims on Dec. 2, 2020, which the Court granted on Sept. 29, 2021. The Court ultimately certified a class consisting of "all individuals who worked as wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders for Defendants from May 7, 2017, to March 1, 2020, and were paid a Service Rate." It appointed the Plaintiff's counsel as the class counsel. While the Defendants opposed class certification, they did not raise any conflict issues with respect to the Class Counsel's appointment. On Dec. 22, 2021, the Class Counsel sent an email to the Defendants' then-counsel with a settlement demand for a "Gross Settlement Fund" or "GSF" of $580,000 to be allocated as follows: $8,103 to Brown (1.5 times single damages); $11,961 to Harris (1.5 times single damages); $8,124 to Hamel (single damages); $5,000 to Mongue (individually, as a service award for being the class representative); $27,102 to the Class for Class tip pool violations ($9,034 × 3); $234,884.80 to the Class for other violations; and $284,825.20 in attorneys' fees and costs (to be allocated between the four cases as Class Counsel chose). The email addressed a number of other terms, including that the Class Counsel may apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of the Litigation, and the Plaintiff may apply to the Court for an enhancement award in consideration for serving as Class Representative (i.e., the "Incentive Award") in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00, subject to approval by the Court to be paid out of the GSF. The following day, after further negotiations, then-counsel for Defendants responded "confirming that the parties have reached a global settlement on the terms stated" in the Plaintiff's Counsel's email with two modifications, including that the total GSF would be $550K rather than $580K, with Class Counsel deciding how to adjust the allocation. The defense counsel further noted the following in connection with the agreement: (1) that the award of attorneys' fees and costs and expenses would be paid out of the GSF; (2) that Defendants would get general releases from Brown, Harris, Hamel, and Mongue and could include a release of wage claims on the checks to class members; and (3) that all four lawsuits would be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's Counsel responded, "confirmed." Thereafter, on Dec. 29, 2021, the Defendants' then-counsel notified the Court via emails to the Courtroom Clerk that the four cases against the Defendants had been resolved, that the parties in the Individual Cases would be filing joint motions for 45-day nisi orders, and that the Class Counsel would be following up with the Court likely after the New Year in relation to the instant matter. On April 5, 2022, the parties jointly requested a status conference as they had "encountered obstacles to finalizing settlement" in the four matters. After the status conference was held on April 20, 2022, the parties entered into settlement agreements to resolve the three Individual Cases, and the Individual Plaintiffs filed stipulations of dismissal on May 6, 2022. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Defendants were to pay $8,103 to Brown, $11,961 to Harris, and $8,124.00 to Hamel; these figures represented the same amounts that were contemplated in the Class Counsel's Dec. 22, 2021, settlement demand. The payment provisions and release of claims contained in the settlement agreements state that they are contingent on this court issuing a "Final Approval Order" in this matter, defined as an order approving a class action settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice. In addition, the Defendants agreed to pay a maximum of $60,000 in attorney's fees and costs with respect to each of the three cases, for a total of up to $180,000, or any lesser amount this court may direct at any time before entry of a Final Approval Order in this matter. In the instant matter, the Defendants' then-counsel filed a status report notifying the Court that Defendant L. Linfield Simon (hereinafter "Simon") had instructed them not to spend further time negotiating a settlement agreement relating solely to the claims in the case." The Defendants' then-counsel noted that they had "differing views from Simon regarding the relevant legal issues" and sought "guidance" on how to proceed. In response, the Court issued an order directing the Class Counsel to file a motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement to the extent there existed a basis for doing so and indicating that it would entertain a request for attorneys' fees in connection with the motion to enforce. It further admonished Simon that it would not review or rule on anything he filed while represented by counsel unless it was filed by said counsel on his behalf. Finally, it directed the Defendants' then-counsel to the local rule setting forth the appropriate procedures for an attorney to withdraw his or her appearance. In compliance with the Court's order, the Class Counsel filed the instant motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Class Counsel also seeks its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. The Defendants, through new counsel, oppose enforcement of the settlement agreement, object to the request for fees, and urge the Court to establish a briefing schedule to revisit class certification, including whether the Class Counsel satisfies the "adequacy" requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). They argue that the Court cannot enforce the agreement because it violates public policy where enforcement would violate its fiduciary duties to unnamed class members due to an inherent conflict in the Class Counsel's concurrent representation of the Individual Plaintiffs and Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the unnamed class members, on the other, in the negotiation of an aggregate settlement and attorneys' fee award across all cases. Judge Robertson is not convinced that the record supports an award of attorney's fees where the Plaintiff's counsel did not file an affidavit regarding the events leading up to the filing of the motion to compel on which the Court might rest a finding of bad faith or quantifying and justifying the amount of fees and costs. Indeed, she holds, although the Plaintiff's counsel makes a passing reference to Simon's declaration, the only argument advanced by the Plaintiff in support of an award of fees is that the Court stated that it would entertain a request for fees if the Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In view of the caution required of a district court, a party asking the Court to exercise its inherent authority to award fees must do more to show the egregious circumstances that would warrant an award of fees. For her stated reasons, Judge Robertson grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement insofar as the Court orders that the parties' settlement agreement will be enforced and denies insofar as the Plaintiff seeks an award of fees in connection with this motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxdteka from Leagle.com. WOOD GROUP: Parties File Scheduling & Discovery Plans in Iannotti ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Iannotti, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. Wood Group Mustang, Case No. 3:20-cv-00958-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Parties submit a joint report and proposed amended scheduling and discovery order as follows: 1. Discovery prior to Class Certification must be sufficient to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry into the merits of the case to ensure appropriate management of the case as a Class Action. 2. Initial interrogatories and requests to produce, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and SDIL-LR 33.1, were exchanged between the parties in 2021. 3. The Plaintiff(s) depositions in connection with class certification shall be taken by January 31, 2023. 4. The Defendant(s) depositions in connection with class certification shall be taken by January 31, 2023. 5. Third Party actions must be commenced by (not applicable) (which date shall be no late than 90 days following the scheduling conference). 6. Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), as follows: -- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): January 13, 2023 -- Defendant(s) expert(s): February 10, 2023. 7. Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken by: -- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): February 17, 2023 -- Defendant(s) expert(s): February 28, 2023. 8. The parties certify that they have discussed, in particular, the proportionality of discovery, the burden and expense associated with discovery, and the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). 9. The Plaintiff(s) Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support shall be filed by March 16, 2023. 10. The Defendant(s) Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by April 13, 2023 and shall not exceed 30 pages. 11. The Plaintiff(s) Reply Memorandum, if any, must be filed by April 27, 2023 and shall not exceed 15 pages. 12. The parties anticipate fact and expert discovery to be entirely concluded by July 31, 2023. 13. The parties agree to a dispositive motion deadline of August 31, 2023. Wood Group serves the upstream oil and gas, refining and chemicals, pipeline, automation and control, and industrial markets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XBEfswat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa White, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com -and- Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: S. Mark Klyza, Esq. Bryan Edward Bowdler, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 E-mail: beb@kullmanlaw.com smk@kullmanlaw.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Faces Suits in NV Court Over Deposit Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation, National Association disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that five civil class action cases have been filed against the company by the same plaintiffs' attorney, seeking to hold the bank liable for practices relating to, and disclosures in, its deposit agreement pertaining to fees. Three of the five cases have been dismissed, and the following two cases remain pending and are in early phases of litigation: "Sipple v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A." was brought against the company in the District court of Clark County, Nevada in February 2021 with respect to foreign transaction fees. "Christensen v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A." was brought against the company in California state court in November 2021 and removed to federal court in the Southern District of California in January 2022. Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a commercial bank headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. ********* 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 ***