/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 238 Headlines ANTHONY-THOMAS CANDY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASSESSOR OF GARDEN CITY: Hoffman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Ortner Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Zhang Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Kiernan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSUMPTION PARISH: Leblanc Seeks School Bus Staff's Unpaid Wages BAYER HEALTHCARE: Shannon Files Suit in S.D. Indiana BELLRING BRANDS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits BENEFYTT TECH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Feb. 3, 2023 BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought BIRD GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Arias Class Suit in California BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Settlement Claim Due Jan. 18 BPS DIRECT: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Vonbergen Suit Says BRIGHT SOLAR: Must Produce Records of Calls to Class Members BRIGHT SOLAR: Must Show Records Responsive to Bales' Requests CAMP NYC INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Ordered to Serve Logs in Antitrust Suit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Sansone Class Status Bid CHEVRON CORPORATION: Faces Navarro Wage-and-Hour Suit in California CLEVELAND, OH: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Dec. 15 COLLECTO INC: Opposes Davis' Bid for Class Certification COMMUNICARE INC: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 2023 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fails to Secure Customers' Data, White Says CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Final Nod CREDIT CONTROL: Balanag Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois CROCS INC: Shoes Shrink When Exposed to Sunlight, Valentine Says DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELEVATE RECOVERIES: Phillips Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas EVMO INC: YayYo Securities Litigation Dismissed EXPRESS LIEN: Williams Directed to File Class Cert Bid FAIRCHESTER SNACKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jaffe Suit Alleges FEDERAL CLEANING: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Walters Says FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Bid to Deny Class Cert in Rathmann Suit FORTUNE BRANDS: Faces Peck Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages GARDNER PIE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaufman Alleges GPB HOLDINGS: Kinnie Ma Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing at N.Y.S.C. GPB HOLDINGS: Ortiz Class Suit Ongoing HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Heymer Sues Over Motor Parts' Monopoly HOLADOCTOR INC: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HOLMES STAMP: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOMENATURE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ILLINOIS: Simmons Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Amended Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered INTIGRAL INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lewis Claims IRVINE COMPANY: Morgan Sues Over Residential Leases' Monopoly JACKSON'S FOOD: Nunez Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website JACOBS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Delozier Class Suit KIA AMERICA: Rivera Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania KIWI.COM INC: Minevich Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania L'OREAL USA: Faces Suit Over Toxic Hair Relaxers, Straighteners LA PETITE ACADEMY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Entered in Thompson LINCARE INC: Prostek Suit Removed to M.D. Florida LM SAN FRANCISCO: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MACKENZIE-CHILDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MDL 2981: Class Certified in Consumer Antitrust Litigation MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Ponce MICROBILT CORP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Hernandez Suit MISSION POINT: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: MissPERS Wins Class Certification Bid MORPHE LLC: Brooks' Bid for Default Judgment Denied W/o Prejudice NETWORK TRAVEL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 18, 2023 NEW YORK, NY: Iwachiw Sues Over Flood Plan Mismanagement NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Scheduling Order Entered in Chapman Suit NORTHWELL HEALTH: Bruno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensations NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Plaintiffs' Settlement Notice Plan Rejected OKCOIN USA INC: Nguyen Suit removed to N.D. California ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Aptor Consolidated Stockholder Suit ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Braun Securities Class Suit ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Halper Sadeh Investigates Securities Claims PAPA MURPHYS: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California PHRG MANAGEMENT: Wachter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA POSTMATES INC: Arbitration & Dismissal in Immediato Suit Affirmed PROCTER & GAMBLE: Adeghe Sues Over False, Misleading Labeling PROCTER & GAMBLE: Thomas Sues Over False, Misleading Labeling PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Hazel Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping RENOVACARE INC: Continues to Defend Boller Shareholder Class Suit RENOVACARE INC: Continues to Defend Solakian Shareholder Suit in NJ RESURGENT CAPITAL: Case Management Order Entered in Haston Suit ROGERS GARDENS NEWPORT: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bennett Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Hasson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Misappropriates Customer Funds, Pierce Says SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought in Johnson SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss or Stay Carralez Suit Denied SELENE FINANCE: Deadline Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought SFBSC MGMT: $6.5M Class Settlement in Roe Suit Wins Final Approval SHANDA GAMES: Only Zang Remains as Defendant in Securities Suit SHEMIA FAGAN: Thielman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Florida SMCL HOLDINGS: Cannon Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages STATE FARM: Gebka Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines TESLA INC: Seeks to Compel Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement THRASIO LLC: Batista Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website TIAA BANK: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought TIKTOK INC: Recht Sues Over Interception of Private Data TOULA MANUFACTURING: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Faces Tower Class Suit Over Air Ticket Refunds TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Discovery Plan & Sched Order Entered in Rand TRIUMPH PHARMACEUTICALS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Pena Says TWITTER INC: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration in WARN Lawsuit UHL VENTURES: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Bonura UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Violations UNITED FURNITURE: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification URS MIDWEST: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Dec. 16 in Rodriguez US AIR FORCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Doster Suit VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Enno Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania VESTAS-AMERICAN: Molengraaf Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages VF OUTDOOR: Bids to Certify Class & Strike in Valencia Suit Denied YIELDSTREET INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 3, 2023 ZEETOGROUP LLC: Compelled to Reply to Subpoenas in Health IQ Suit ZUFFA LLC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought ********* ANTHONY-THOMAS CANDY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony-Thomas Candy Company. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthony-Thomas Candy Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-10068 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anthony-Thomas Candy Company -- https://www.anthony-thomas.com/ -- offers confectionery products. The Company provides boxed chocolates, buckeyes, gift stacks, summer candies, and other candies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ASSESSOR OF GARDEN CITY: Hoffman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Garden City, et al. The case is styled as Suzanne Hoffman, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Garden City, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Garden City, Respondents, Case No. 616674/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Garden City -- https://www.gardencityny.net/ -- is a village located on Long Island in Nassau County New York.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Ortner Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, et al. The case is styled as Melvin Ortner, Rita Ortner, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Respondents, Case No. 616680/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Great Neck Estates -- https://www.vgne.com/ -- is a village on the Great Neck Peninsula in the Town of North Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Zhang Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, et al. The case is styled as Alex Zhang, Xiao Ping Song, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Respondents, Case No. 616682/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Great Neck Estates -- https://www.vgne.com/ -- is a village on the Great Neck Peninsula in the Town of North Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Kiernan 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 Stephen Kiernan, Tricia Kiernan, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Rockville Centre, Respondents, Case No. 616673/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 28, 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 ASSUMPTION PARISH: Leblanc Seeks School Bus Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRAXTON LEBLANC ET. AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSUMPTION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04617-CJB-DMD (E.D. La., November 22, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and members of the putative collective action were employed by the Defendant as either school bus operators or school bus attendants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective action class routinely worked in excess of 5 hours each day. The Defendant allegedly required them to perform off-the-clock task but without any compensation whatsoever. Due to the forced off-the-clock hours worked, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated employees did not receive minimum wage for the off-the-clock hours, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, interest, and any other relief that the Court deems just. Assumption Parish School Board is a political subdivision of the Parish Assumption, State of Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Bullman, Esq. Brian F. Blackwell, Esq. BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC 8322 One Calais Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: (225) 769-2462 Fax: (225) 769-2463 E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Shannon Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Healthcare LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Shannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Corporation, Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02003-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 12, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Warranty. Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl Vincent Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com BELLRING BRANDS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Bellring Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2022, that the company continues to defend consumer class suits in various courts on different allegations. In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the "Related Federal Actions"). These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the action on behalf of New York consumers was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the Court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment interest. In October 2022, Premier Nutrition filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The other eight Related Federal Actions remain pending, and the court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except New Mexico). In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and plaintiff's petition for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit was denied. In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed this complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers as the California Federal Class Lawsuit. Following the Norther District's denial of Premier Nutrition's motion to preliminarily enjoin this complaint under the doctrine of res judicata, Premier Nutrition appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Premier Nutrition's motion to preliminarily enjoin the complaint, holding that the Alameda Superior Court would have to decide whether plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata. The hearing on Premier Nutrition's motion for judgment based on res judicata is currently set for January 2023. In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period. This matter is set for trial in June 2023. The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases and intends to appeal any adverse judgments and awards of damages. BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company based in Missouri. BENEFYTT TECH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Feb. 3, 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN, et al., v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62371-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order that: -- The Motion for enlargement of time and page limits for class certification filings is granted in part and denied in part. The defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before February 3, 2023. The reply memorandum shall be filed on or before February 17, 2023. The motion and response shall not exceed 30 pages and the reply shall not exceed 20 pages. Benefytt provides software and insurance solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0hQ2a at no extra charge.[CC] BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06719-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate to the following class certification briefing schedule: 1. The Defendants shall file their January 27, 2023 Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by: 2. Lead Plaintiff shall file any March 28, 2023 Reply in support of its Motion for Class Certification by: 3. The hearing on Lead Plaintiff's April 12, 2023 Motion for Class Certification is reset to: On October 4, 2022, the Court held a Case Management Conference and set the deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as October 17, 2022, the deadline for the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as December 16, 2022. The counsel for Defendants and for Lead Plaintiff have met and conferred regarding the class certification briefing schedule and have agreed to extend Defendants' deadline to file its Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until after the deposition of FE-1 takes place. BioMarin is an American biotechnology company headquartered in San Rafael, California. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isRD1R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salvatore Graziano, Esq. Jeroen Van Kwawegan, Esq. Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. Abe Alexander, Esq. William E. Freeland, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com jeroen@blbglaw.com katiem@blbglaw.com abe.alexander@blbglaw.com billy.freeland@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John C. Dwyer, Esq. Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843 5000 Facsimile: (650) 849 7400 E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com BIRD GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Arias Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Bird Global 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 17, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Arias putative class suit in the Central District of California. On November 17, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Central District of California against the Company and a director and prior officer, entitled MARIO ARIAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bird Global, Inc. F/K/A Switchback II Corporation, Travis VanderZanden, and Yibo Ling. The complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, by making allegedly materially false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. Bird Global Inc. is a micromobility company engaged in delivering electric transportation solutions for short distances. The Company partners with cities to bring lightweight, electric vehicles to residents and visitors in an effort to replace car trips by providing an alternative sustainable transportation option. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Settlement Claim Due Jan. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLG is representing women who qualify under the BSC (BOSTON SCIENTIFIC) TRANSVAGINAL MESH CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A Canada wide settlement has been reached and approved on June 12, 2020 to resolve litigation against Boston Scientific Ltd. and Boston Scientific Corp. If you were implanted on or before February 28, 2020 with a BSC transvaginal mesh device for treatment of stress, urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse, you may be entitled to compensation! The Supplemental Claim Period deadline is January 18, 2023. Eligible claimants will be compensated for: 1. injuries sustained (or worsened) after January 18, 2021; 2. Women who missed the Initial Claim Deadline; 3. Women who were implanted between April 1, 2016 and February 28, 2020. Please fill out the form below with your full name and phone number and someone from our team will call you right back to help you through this process to get you the compensation that you deserve. Boston Scientific Transvaginal Mesh Devices are used to treat either stress urinary incontinence ("SUI") or pelvic organ prolapse ("POP"). To be eligible to make a claim in the Supplemental Claims Period, you must be resident in Canada and implanted with a BSC Transvaginal Mesh Device on or before February 28, 2020. For the purposes of this Claim, "BSC Transvaginal Mesh Device" means any of the following products: - Advantage System (including, but not limited to, Advantage Fit System) - Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling - Obtryx II, Lynx Suprapubic Mid-Urethral Sling System - Solyx Single Incision Sling (SIS) - Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, anterior/apical and posterior configuration - Uphold Vaginal Support System [GN] BPS DIRECT: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Vonbergen Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY VONBERGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BPS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04709 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 23, 2022) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully intercepts the Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant to watch and record Plaintiff's and the Class members' visits to its websites in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Accordingly, the Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware, namely Quantum Metric and Microsoft Clarity respectively, to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications with Defendant's websites, including how they interacted with the websites, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the websites, and pages and content viewed while visiting the websites. The Defendant knowingly and intentionally intercepted the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of the Plaintiff or the Class members, the suit claims. Over the past year, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's cabelas.com website approximately 4 times. The Plaintiff most recently visited Defendant's Cabelas website on August of 2022. During her visits to the Cabelas website, the Plaintiff transmitted electronic communications in the form of instructions to Defendant's computer servers utilized to operate the website. The Plaintiff reasonably believed that she was interacting privately with Defendant's website, and not that she was being recorded and that those recordings would be transmitted to a third party server where they could later be watched by Defendant's employees, or worse yet, live while Plaintiff was on the website, alleges the suit. Because the code is secret and encrypted, the Plaintiff and the putative class members were not aware that their electronic communications were allegedly being intercepted by Defendant's Session Replay Provider(s). BPS Direct owns and operates the following websites: basspro.com and cabelas.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Fascimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@marcuszelman.com BRIGHT SOLAR: Must Produce Records of Calls to Class Members ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOYD STEVE BALES, v. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00496-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Philip R. Lammens entered an order granting the Plaintiff's opposed motion to compel the Defendant to produce records of calls to putative class members and their consent to these calls. The Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), and the Florida Telemarketing Act ("FTA"). Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated these acts by calling him using an auto dialer. The suit seeks to represent three classes: -- Florida Autodial Class "All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff." -- Florida DNC Class "All persons in Florida, (1) whose telephone numbers appear on the then-current "no sales solicitation calls" list, and (2) who received unsolicited telephone sales call from the Defendant or their agent(s). -- Florida Unlawful Call Time Class: "All persons in Florida, who (1) received a commercial solicitation call from the Defendant, (2) before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. in their local time zone. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XJh5At at no extra charge.[CC] BRIGHT SOLAR: Must Show Records Responsive to Bales' Requests ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FLOYD STEVE BALES, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-496-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, grants the Plaintiff's opposed motion to compel the Defendant to produce records of calls to putative class members and their consent to these calls. The Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), Fla. Stat. Sections 501.059(4) & (8)(a), and the Florida Telemarketing Act ("FTA"), Fla. Stat. Section 501.616(a). He alleges the Defendant violated these acts by calling him: (1) using an auto dialer, (2) despite his number being on a no-call list, and (3) before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. Further, although he has yet to seek class certification, he seeks to represent three classes: a. Florida Autodial Class: All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding the Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call the Plaintiff. b. Florida DNC Class: All persons in Florida, (1) whose telephone numbers appear on the then-current no sales solicitation calls list, and (2) who received unsolicited telephone sales call from the Defendant or their agent(s). c. Florida Unlawful Call Time Class: All persons in Florida, who (1) received a commercial solicitation call from the Defendant, (2) before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. in their local time zone. While the Defendant purportedly admitted during discovery that it, rather than a vendor, called the Plaintiff and the putative class members, its answer to the Complaint raises the affirmative defense of "prior express written consent of the called party." On Jan. 6, 2022, the Plaintiff served on the Defendant requests for document production -- two of which are at issue: a. Request No. 21: Please produce all documents containing any of the following information for each outbound solicitation call sent by you or your vendors: a) the date and time; b) the caller ID; c) any recorded message or dialing system used; d) the result; e) identifying information for the recipient; and f) any other information stored by the call detail records. b. Request No. 24: To the extent the Defendant asserts that Defendant obtained consent or permission to contact the Plaintiff or the putative class members based on a visit to a website, produce documents that identify those website(s) and the specific page(s) on those website(s) that you claim constitute consent or permission. On Feb. 21, 2022, the Defendant served its responses, objecting to Request No. 21 ("call records") and Request No. 24 ("consent records"). The Defendant's refusal to produce call records resulted in an April 12th conferral where the counsel stated it would produce the documents the following week. However, on April 18th, the Defendant stated it was refusing to produce call records until a protective order was in place. On May 18, 2022, the parties executed a protective order, and the defendant produced documents, besides call records for the putative class and consent records for the putative class. Conferring on June 9th, the Defendant stated it would subsequently advise on its position for producing these documents, but it told Plaintiff it was still unsure on June 16th. On June 30th, the parties conferred, reaching an impasse on the call records, but Defendant stated it would supplement class information for the consent records in the following weeks. On July 21, 2022, the Defendant produced 35 pages of documents relating to the Plaintiff's purported consent, "most of which it had previously produced." After conferring on August 15th about the consent records, on August 23rd, the Defendant confirmed that it and the Plaintiff were at an impasse, as it was abstaining from producing consent records for the class. On September 22nd, the Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the Defendant's production of call records and consent records for the putative class. The discovery deadline is Oct. 28, 2022. First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's motion must be denied as untimely because he filed it "212 days" after receiving Defendant's responses to his requests for production. However, Judge Lammens finds that, as the Plaintiff points out, any delay is the result of conferring with Defendant and attempting to avoid judicial intervention. The motion appears timely, as it was filed "within a 'reasonable' time period." Likewise, it seems the Plaintiff has failed to waive his ability to file the motion to compel. Further, the Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because it is inappropriate to discover class member information before there is class certification. However, as the Plaintiff points out, pre-certification discovery is permissible to the extent that "information and documents sought shed light on the class certification Rule 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation." The Plaintiff is seeking call and consent records which are relevant to determining the propriety of class certification, such as whether most putative class members have "Article III standing." The Plaintiff contends that Request Nos. 21 and 24 are necessary to establish the merits of his and class members' claims, and that there is little burden on the Defendant to produce these records despite its objections. As the Plaintiff points out (and the Defendant fails to contest) the Defendant only needs to "ask its dialer provider" to provide the class records, as it did for his own. Therefore, Judge Lammens overrules the Defendant's objections as to the burden of production. Further, as to Request No. 21, Judge Lammens finds the Defendant's privacy argument unavailing. He says the Defendant fails to cite a particular privacy law as the basis for this interest, in addition to failing to explain how disclosing individuals' names and phone numbers would violate their privacy interests. Moreover, Courts in this district usually reject such objections without a showing of "particular information" explaining how answering discovery would violate the privacy interests of a third party. Further, when the parties, like here, have executed a protective order, it is sufficient to prevent privacy concerns from arising about the use of information. Further, as to Request No. 24, the Defendant contends that it has complied with the request by providing the Plaintiff's consent records, because the request uses "the disjunctive phrase the 'Plaintiff or putative class members.'" However, as Plaintiff argues, the request uses the word "or" instead of "and" to clarify that responsive documents need not have the consent of the Plaintiff and a putative class member The consent records will go to establishing the predominance factor for class certification, because it implicates standing, which a large portion of the class could lack if they gave consent to the calls (thereby precluding class certification). Therefore, the Defendant must produce records responsive to Request No. 24 for the putative class. Finally, to the extent that the Defendant argues granting this motion to compel necessitates an extension of the discovery deadline for it to re-depose the Plaintiff's expert, Judge Lammens finds the argument and request premature, and denies it without prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Lammens grants the motion to compel to the extent that the Defendant will produce documents responsive to Request No. 21 and Request No. 24. The Defendant will produce the requested documents by Dec. 9, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9683s7 from Leagle.com. CAMP NYC INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camp NYC, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Camp NYC, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10079 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CAMP -- https://camp.com/ -- is an online shopping portal that offers curated product collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Ordered to Serve Logs in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case Nos. 20-cv-03639-EJD (VKD), 20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, enters an order resolving the parties' disputes concerning documents the Defendants have withheld as privileged. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") (collectively "Plaintiffs") and the Defendants ask the Court to resolve their disputes concerning documents the Defendants have withheld as privileged and the sufficiency of their privilege log. Judge DeMarchi finds these disputes suitable for resolution without oral argument. The Defendants' privilege log includes over 1,000 entries. The Plaintiffs appear to challenge more than half of these entries as insufficient to support the Defendants' assertions of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection. They ask the Court to order the Defendants to produce all of the challenged documents or, for some entries, to produce the documents for in camera review. The Defendants argue that their privilege log entries are sufficient, and they oppose the Plaintiffs' challenges to specific categories of documents withheld as privileged. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' privilege claims on several grounds. First, they say that many of the Defendants' privilege log entries are insufficiently descriptive to support a claim of privilege. Second, they say the Defendants should be required to produce any document reflecting a communication disclosed to a third party. Third, the Plaintiffs say that the Defendants have improperly withheld responsive documents on the basis of a non-existent "tax privilege." Fourth, they say the Defendants should not be permitted to clawback privileged documents because they failed to satisfy all requirements of Rule 502(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fifth, they say the Defendants have improperly withheld nonprivileged documents attached to privileged communications. Judge DeMarchi first addresses the parties' arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Defendants' privilege log, and then discusses the Plaintiffs' challenges to specific categories of withheld documents. First, the Plaintiffs argue that many of the Defendants' privilege log entries do not identify the author or recipient of the allegedly privileged communication, fail to properly identify the attorneys involved and the clients they represent, and contain only conclusory descriptions that do not enable other parties or the Court to assess its privilege assertions. The Defendants respond that if an entry is missing an author or recipient, the document listed either has no recipient or is an attachment to an email that immediately precedes it in the log. With respect to the question of whether the Defendants have properly identified (or accounted for the absence of) an author or recipient, Judge DeMarchi orders the Defendants to amend their privilege log to make clear "the nature of the document," such as a memo or attachment to an email, and "all persons or entities shown on the document to have received or sent the document." With respect to the question of whether the Defendants have identified the attorneys and clients involved in the privileged communications, the indication of the attorney-client relationship need not be set out in each privilege log entry but may be explained in a separate document -- e.g., Attorney A represents Client B, whose representatives are C, D, and E or personnel with the email domain xyz.com. With respect to the question of whether the Defendants have adequately described the subject matter of the disputed privilege log entries, Judge DeMarchi is not persuaded that the Defendants' entries are insufficient. The Plaintiffs do not identify any specific entries for which a more detailed description of the subject matter of the allegedly privileged communication is necessary for them to assess the Defendants' claim of privilege. She does not require the Defendants to supplement their log to include additional information regarding subject matter at this time. Second, the Plaintiffs have identified numerous privilege log entries that appear to indicate that an allegedly privileged communication was sent to a person or entity who is a third party outside the attorney-client relationship. The Defendants argue that the "third parties" are in fact employees or representatives of Defendants, an attorney representing one or more defendants, a family member of a defendant, or consultants of some sort. The Plaintiffs' portion of the joint submission does not address the Defendants' explanations about the roles of the purported third parties. Where the privilege log entry clearly reflects that the purported third party is the client, an employee of the client, and/or an attorney representing the client, Judge DeMarchi finds that the Defendants have made at least a prima facie showing that the privilege has not been waived by virtue of disclosure to a third party. However, it is not clear from the parties' joint submission whether the other roles the Defendants identify -- e.g., family member, tax or financial consultant, non-employee technical staff or technical consultant -- are necessarily within the attorney-client relationship, and their privilege log entries do not provide an adequate basis for this assessment. Accordingly, Judge DeMarchi orders further proceedings regarding this category of disputed entries. Third, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have improperly withheld from production documents relating to taxes or tax returns, some of which are labeled "tax privilege" on the Defendants' privilege log. The Defendants do not dispute that there is no privilege that protects tax returns from discovery, but they argue that the tax documents logged as privileged are not responsive to any of Plaintiffs' document requests, and even if they were, such documents are not discoverable unless Plaintiffs show a compelling need for their production. As the parties agree that no privilege protects the disputed tax documents from production, Judge DeMarchi holds that the Defendants must remove these documents from their privilege log and may not withhold them as privileged. To the extent there is a dispute regarding whether the tax documents are responsive to the Plaintiffs' documents requests or whether there is some other reason they should not be produced, the parties must confer on this point and if they continue to disagree, they must submit this dispute to the Court using the expedited dispute resolution procedures. Fourth, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants should not be permitted to clawback and withhold from production allegedly privileged and work product documents that were inadvertently produced. They do not dispute that the production of these documents was inadvertent, but they say that the Defendants have failed to show that they took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and to rectify the error. The Defendants respond that they have already provided a declaration attesting to the reasonable steps they took to prevent disclosure and correct the inadvertent production promptly upon learning of it. The Plaintiffs' portion of the joint submission does not address the Defendants' reference to this declaration. As they explain in the joint submission and in Mr. Frost's prior declaration, the Defendants took steps to screen for privileged materials and immediately asked to clawback the documents that had been produced without being screened once they learned of the mistaken production. The Plaintiffs do not explain why this showing is insufficient under Rule 502(b). For this reason, the relief they request is denied. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have improperly withheld documents attached to privileged communications where the attachments themselves are not privileged. The Defendants respond that many of the attachments are themselves privileged because they reflect attorney work product and litigation strategy, were exchanged among clients at the request of counsel, and that others were sent to counsel for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Again, the Plaintiffs' portion of the joint submission does not address Defendants' arguments about specific privilege log entries. While the Plaintiffs are correct that documents are not privileged merely because they are provided to counsel, their failure to engage with the Defendants' arguments on specific privilege log entries makes it difficult for the Court to resolve using the expedited dispute resolution procedures. At the same time, their privilege log entries are insufficient in most cases to demonstrate that the attachments are indeed privileged or work product. Accordingly, Judge DeMarchi orders further proceedings regarding this category of disputed entries. Based on the foregoing, Judge DeMarchi orders the Defendants to serve an amended privilege log (or logs) that complies with the Court's direction by Dec. 20, 2022. If the Defendants elect to make other changes to their privilege log, they will inform the Plaintiffs of the other changes. With respect to the disputed Third Party Communications and Attachments addressed, Judge DeMarchi concludes that these matters should be briefed as a regularly noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2, supported by declarations and other evidence as necessary. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the Plaintiffs will be the moving party. In connection with such briefing, the Plaintiffs must first select no more than 20 entries from each of the two disputed privilege log categories (i.e., Third Party Communications and Attachments) for a total of no more than 40 entries from among those entries previously identified as within these disputed categories. They will communicate this selection to the Defendants no later than Dec. 13, 2022. After making this communication, the Plaintiffs may file a regularly noticed motion challenging the Defendants' privilege claims as to the selected entries. If the Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion as to any of the selected entries, they must submit for in camera review the documents corresponding to the disputed entries at the time they file their opposition to the motion. After the Court decides the Plaintiffs' motion it will consider whether any further proceedings are necessary to address any remaining disputes regarding the Defendants' privilege claims. Except as set forth, Judge DeMarchi denies the Plaintiffs' remaining requests for relief. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jpmfdhh from Leagle.com. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Sansone Class Status Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER M. SANSONE, and BALDEMAR ORDUNO, JR., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public Similarly Situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01880-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants move the Court for an order denying class certification of Plaintiffs Jennifer Sansone and Baldemar Orduno's remaining claims in the litigation. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ur8r6P at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: J. Scott Carr, Esq. Kristapor Vartanian, Esq. Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq. Michael D. Kabat, KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com kvartanian@kcozlaw.com jozmer@kcozlaw.com mkabat@kcozlaw.com CHEVRON CORPORATION: Faces Navarro Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, BUBBLE CLEAN, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV407474 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., November 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California. Chevron Corporation is an American multinational energy corporation, headquartered in California. Bubble Clean is a car washing services provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. David Arakelyan, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com arakelyan@setarehlaw.com CLEVELAND, OH: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pickett, et al., v. City of Cleveland, Case No. 1:19-cv-02911 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order on motion to extend deadlines: 1. granting the Parties'Joint Dec. 15, 2022 Motion for extension of class certification and dispositive motion opposition briefs until: 2. class certification and Jan. 19, 2023 dispositive motion reply briefs until: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act involving Civil Rights – Housing/Accommodations. Cleveland is a city in the U.S. state of Ohio and the county seat of Cuyahoga County.[CC] COLLECTO INC: Opposes Davis' Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA DAVIS and CLARENCE DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00044 (S.D.W. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This entirely attorney-driven lawsuit attempts to attack the industry-standard practice of first-party servicing and collections in the state of West Virginia. The Plaintiffs, Brenda Davis and her husband, Clarence Davis, assert class claims against EOS for EOS's purported failure to identify itself during first-party servicing calls on behalf of DISH pursuant to sections 46A-2-127(a) and (c) of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"). However, plaintiffs both misconstrue the requirements of the WVCCPA and fail to meet their burden of establishing their claims are appropriate for class treatment under Rule 23. On April 12, 2016, Ms. Davis opened an account with Dish by entering into a Digital Home Advantage Plan Agreement ("DHAP"), Residential Customer Agreement, and Service Agreement with Dish. Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZXlTa at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq. BAILEY & W YANT , PLLC 500 Virginia Street East, Suite 600 Charleston, WV 25337-3710 Telephone: (304) 720-0715 Facsimile: (304) 343-3133 E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com - and- Bryan C. Shartle, Esq. Bradley J. St. Angelo, Esq. SESSIONS , I SRAEL & S HARTLE , LLC 3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Telephone: (504) 828-3700 Facsimile: (504) 828-3737 - and- Dayle M. Van Hoose, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3350 Buschwood Park Dr., Suite 195 Tampa, FL 33618 Telephone: (813) 890-2460 - and- Katlin C. Zarisky, Esquire, Esq. Lawrence J. Bartel, III, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 316-2917 Facsimile: (412) 347-5461 COMMUNICARE INC: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEJEL JEFFREYS, v. COMMUNICARE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 5:22-cv-00371-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered a class certification deadlines order as follows: 1. Deadline to Add Parties or Amend Feb. 7, 2023 Pleadings: 2. Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion Nov. 7, 2023 for Conditional Class Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs: 3. Deadline for Defendant's Dec. 7, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Conditional Class Certification: 4. Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Dec. 21, 2023 in Support of Conditional Class Certification: 5. Deadline for Completing Oct. 9, 2023 Non-Expert Discovery: 6. Deadline for Party(ies) with July 7, 2023 Burden of Proof to Identify Experts(s) and Provide Reports in Compliance with Civil Rule 26(a)(2): 7. Deadline to Identify Rebuttal Aug. 7, 2023 Experts(s) and Provide Reports in Compliance with Civil Rule 26(a)(2): 8. Deadline for Completing Expert Nov. 7, 2023 Discovery: 9. Deadline for Filing Nov. 7, 2023 Dispositive Motions: 10. Deadline for Filing Opposition Dec. 7, 2023 to Dispositive Motions: 11. Deadline for Filing Replies Dec. 21, 2023 to Responses: Communicare is a therapy center that provides occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, physical therapy, and special education services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ivrpM0 at no extra charge.[CC] CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fails to Secure Customers' Data, White Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MARIE WHITE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.; ACCOUNT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INC.; ACCOUNT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:22-cv-07450 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022) alleges that the Defendants fail to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems on June 17, 2022. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a California subclass for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution. On November 1, 2022, Convergent Outsourcing filed a data breach notice with the Attorney General of California. According to the notice, the breach resulted in the name, contact information, financial account number and social security number of certain individuals being compromised. The Plaintiff received a copy of the data breach notice via United States mail service confirming that her personal identifying information was part of the data breach, the lawsuit says. Accordingly, the Defendants breached the duties it owed to Plaintiff and class members by failing to: -- exercise reasonable care and implement adequate security systems, protocols and practices sufficient to protect the personal information of Plaintiff and class members; -- prevent the breach; -- detect the breach while it was ongoing; -- maintain security systems consistent with industry; -- timely disclose that Plaintiff's and class members' personal information in DEFENDANTS's possession had been or was reasonably believed to have been stolen or compromised; and -- failing to comply fully even with its own purported security practices. Convergent Outsourcing is a debt collection agencies with offices across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- CPI Aerostructures 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 21, 2022, that the settlement in the Consolidated Shareholder derivative suit is subject to court approval. The first action (captioned Moulton v. McCrosson, et.al., No. 20-cv-02092) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive' and monetary relief, as well as attorneys' fees and other costs. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2021, the Court stayed the action pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by the parties. The second action (captioned Woodyard v. McCrosson, et al., Index No. 613169/2020) was filed on September 17, 2020, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County). It purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct, along with declaratory, equitable, injunctive and monetary relief, as well as attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action. The third action (captioned Berger v. McCrosson, et al., No. 1:20-cv-05454) was filed on November 10, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which is based in part on the shareholder's inspection of certain corporate books and records, purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to implement reforms to the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures and to recover on behalf of the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The complaint also seeks equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys' fees and other costs. On March 19, 2021, the parties to the Moulton and Berger actions filed a joint stipulation consolidating the actions (under the caption In re CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 20-cv-02092) and staying the consolidated action pending further developments in the class action. The fourth action (captioned Wurst v. Bazaar, et al., Index No. 605244/2021) was filed on March 24, 2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County). The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys' fees and other costs. On April 12, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action. On June 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action informed the Court that the Company (as nominal defendant) and all individual defendants had reached an agreement in principle with all plaintiffs to settle the four shareholder derivative lawsuits described above. On June 16, 2022, the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 22, 2022, the Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge; the motion remains pending. The magistrate judge held a conference on September 9, 2022 in the consolidated federal action. The settlement is subject to Court approval and, if approved, will result in the dismissal of the shareholder derivative lawsuits. As part of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed to undertake (or confirm that it has undertaken already) certain corporate governance reforms and to pay attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel. Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is an aviation and aerospace firm producing structural aircraft assemblies, servicing the commercial and military sector of the aircraft industry. The company is based in Edgewood, New York. CREDIT CONTROL: Balanag Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mark Balanag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, CACH, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06628 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CROCS INC: Shoes Shrink When Exposed to Sunlight, Valentine Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA VALENTINE and RUBY CORNEJO, each an individual, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-AGT (N.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022), alleges that Crocs markets, advertises, and sells shoes made of Croslite (TM) material under the brand name of "Crocs," without alerting consumers that these shoes are constructed of a material that shrinks upon exposure to ordinary heat, direct sunlight, and/or water, to the point where they no longer fit the purchaser's feet. The Plaintiff sues the Defendant for fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; negligent misrepresentation; unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices; breach of express and implied warranties; violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The shoes include without limitation, the Crocs' Classic Clog (including Glitter, Printed, Lined, Solarized, Real-Tree, Tie-Dye, Bae, and all other varieties), Classic AllTerrain Clog, LiteRide Clog (all varieties), Classic Sandal (including Cozzzy and all other varieties), and Classic Slide (all varieties). Because the Products are basically water shoes, flip-flops or sandals that are fundamentally designed for, and intended to be worn in, and exposed to, heat, direct sunlight and water, the Products are not fit for their intended purpose. The Products are, thus, unsuitable for their ordinary use. The Defendant additionally markets and advertises that Products as featuring "Iconic Crocs Comfort," 360-degree comfort, and promising that all Crocs "offer a roomy and generous fit that is sure to match your foot," says the suit. Ms. Valentine purchased a new pair of Crocs Classic Bae shoes on eBay in Spring of 2022, for use during a summer trip to Maine. After arriving in Maine and wearing the shoes in hot, muggy, rainy weather, she discovered that the Product shrank such that they no longer fit her well. Ms. Cornejo purchased a pair of Classic Crocs shoes from a DSW shoe store around March of 2022 to use while working outdoors. Around two months after her purchase, she discovered that they had inexplicably shrunk to the point where they no longer fit her. As a result of the Defendant's breach of the written and implied warranties, the Plaintiffs and each member of the class have suffered damages, in that the Products they purchased did not include the features that they paid for, the suit added. Crocs, Inc. is an American footwear company based in Broomfield, Colorado, that manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam clogs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. Kali Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAK Resources, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Vigil, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DAK Resources, Inc., Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010924 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." DAK Resources -- https://dakresources.com/ -- has become one of the best full service staffing agencies in the business, dedicated to finding jobs for veterans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com ELEVATE RECOVERIES: Phillips Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elevate Recoveries, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Latania Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elevate Recoveries, LLC, Cascade Capital Funding, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-04123 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Elevate Recoveries -- https://elevaterecoveries.com/ -- is a healthcare collections company created to "elevate" the patient's experience during the collection process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com EVMO INC: YayYo Securities Litigation Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ EVMO 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 18, 2022, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed an order of dismissal for the YayYo Securities Litigation on October 19, 2022. Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8591 (SVW)(now consolidated as "In re YayYo Securities Litigation") These two actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September 18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have purchased the Common Stock as part of the IPO and, like the plaintiffs in the State Cases, purport to bring a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as and Section 17(a) and 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of all purchasers of the Common Stock in the IPO. The first amended complaint, like the State Cases, alleges false statements and material omissions of material fact in connection with the SEC filings distributed in connection with the IPO. The defendants include directors of the Company and the underwriters of the IPO, WestPark Capital, Inc. and Aegis Capital Corp. The federal court consolidated the two matters for all practical purposes. As with the State Cases, the Company denied liability and asserted that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and circumstances in its SEC filings, and that the complaint's alleged violations of securities laws are baseless. The parties to the federal court litigation announced on October 21, 2021 that they had reached a settlement, which received preliminary approval by the district court on January 13, 2022, allowing the notice of the proposed settlement to be distributed to all class members, who unless they object or drop out, will be bound by the multi-million dollar settlement. The Company's portion of the settlement was $1 million paid out in equal installments every three months over the course of 2022. These payments have been and will continue to be timely made. Executive Chairman Terren Peizer provided his personal guarantee for the whole amount due to the plaintiffs. On July 12, 2022, the district court presiding over In re YayYo Securities Litigation signed an order and final judgment with respect to the settlement described herein. The plaintiffs in the State Cases were bound by this settlement and therefore the State Cases were subject to dismissal by operation of law. On October 19, 2022, the court presiding over the State Cases signed the order of dismissal. EVmo is a technology-enabled fleet management and rental company, connecting gig drivers with electric, hybrid and delivery vehicles. EXPRESS LIEN: Williams Directed to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE L. WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EXPRESS LIEN, INC., d/b/a Levelset, Case No. 1:21-cv-04611-TWT-LTW (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Linda T. Walker entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification within 90 days from the date of this Order. Express Lien provides construction technology platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VrpiaW at no extra charge.[CC] FAIRCHESTER SNACKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jaffe Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JAFFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRCHESTER SNACKS CORP.; LORENZ SCHNEIDER CO., INC.; and YORKSHIRE FOOD SALES CORP., Defendants, Case No. 616496/2022 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Jaffe was employed by the Defendants as distributor. FAIRCHESTER SNACKS CORP. distributes specialty food products and related items and specifically sell and distribute chips and other snack foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy J. Perlmutter, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Email: rperlmutter@kgglaw.com FEDERAL CLEANING: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Walters Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHATAKWA WALTERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL CLEANING CONTRACTORS, INC. and ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CONCEPTS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01399 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 23, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Defendants allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system by: -- shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed; and -- failing to compensate the employees for daily meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30 consecutive minutes in duration. In September 2019, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff into the position of Housekeeper working primarily at Defendants' Bayshore Town Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. During the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff's normal and customary routine at the beginning of her shift each workday was to arrive to work at Defendants prior to her scheduled shift start time, "clock in" via Defendants' electronic timekeeping system, and immediately begin engaging in her cleaning duties prior to her scheduled shift start time each workday. The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for engaging in any pre-shift work and instead rounded Plaintiff's start time for compensation purposes to her scheduled shift start time, the suit claims. Federal Cleaning is a cleaning company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Bid to Deny Class Cert in Rathmann Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RATHMANN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. FORD MOTOR CO., Case No. 6:21-cv-00610-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey C. Manske entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's Motion to deny class certification. -- The new scheduling order provides January 31, 2023 for a fact discovery deadline of: -- Requires Plaintiff to file his February 14, 2023 Motion for Class Certification by: The Court declines to deny Plaintiff's Motion on this ground. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Defendant filed a Motion to Deny Class Certification on October 19, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike, arguing that Defendant's Motion was premature. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fh1Qrc at no extra charge.[CC] FORTUNE BRANDS: Faces Peck Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, BARBARA PECK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORTUNE BRANDS WATER INNOVATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02123 (N.D. Ohio, November 22, 2022) challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt customer service employee within the last three years. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated customer service employees routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek. Prior to the start of their shift, they were required by the Defendant to perform task which takes approximately 15 minutes before their shift started every day. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent performing pre-shift task. The Defendant also failed to compensate them for the time they spent performing off the clock every workday to complete a certain task, which constituted an integral and indispensable part of their principal activities. AS a result, they were not paid proper 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 Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service employees, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking to recover compensatory damages for unpaid, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this action, and other relief to which she and other similarly situated customer service employees are entitled that the Court deems equitable and just. Fortune Brands Water Innovations, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Lalak, Esq. LALAK LLC 1991 Crocker Road, Suite 600 Westlake, OH 44145 Tel: 440-892-3380 E-mail: clalak@employmentlawohio.com GARDNER PIE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaufman Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. GARDNER PIE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-02126 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 23, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kaufman was employed by the Defendant as production employee. GARDNER PIE COMPANY manufactures frozen, unbaked pies for the in-store bakery market, producing bakery items for sale in commercial and retail sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com GPB HOLDINGS: Kinnie Ma Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing at N.Y.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GPB Holdings II 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 17, 2022, that the GPB Consolidated class suit is ongoing at the New York Supreme Court. In re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation (formerly, Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. and Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. (New York Supreme Court, New York County, Case No. 157679/2019) In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, Ascendant Alternative Strategies, Ascendant Capital, and Axiom Capital Management. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al. (W.D. Texas, Case No. 19-cv-01050) In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against GPB, certain GPB-managed limited partnerships, including the Partnership, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed limited partnerships, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and other individuals. The Complaint alleges violations and/or aiding and abetting violations of the Texas Securities Act, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Plaintiffs allege losses in excess of $1.8 billion and are seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, fees and costs, and class certification. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. On June 1, 2022, the Western District of Texas Court consolidated this matter with Barasch v. GPB Capital, et al. (19-cv-01079); only the Kinnie Ma case continues, including the claims at issue in the Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay (as described below), which were consolidated under the Kinnie Ma docket number. On June 23, 2022, the Court denied Defendants David Gentile and Jeffry Schneider's motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the criminal case, U.S. v. Gentile, et al., No. 1:21-CR-54-DG (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on July 1, 2022; defendants filed answers thereafter. As of November 2022, this case remains active. Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay, individually and on behalf of others similar situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. (W.D. Texas, Case No. 19 Civ. 01079) In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against, the Partnership and other GPB-managed limited partnerships, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund administrator, and individuals. (The original Complaint named Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff, but since her death, her trust has successfully moved to substitute for all purposes in this litigation.) The Complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, violations of the Texas Securities Act, and aiding and abetting violations of the Texas Securities Act. Plaintiffs allege losses in excess of $1.8 billion and are seeking compensatory and other unspecified damages, declaratory relief, rescission, and costs and fees. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. On June 1, 2022, the Western District of Texas Court consolidated this matter into Kinnie Ma v. Ascendant Capital, LLC et al. (19-cv-01050). The claims at issue in this case continue under the Kinnie Ma docket number. GPB Holdings II, LP is a holding company based in New York. GPB HOLDINGS: Ortiz Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------- GPB Holdings II 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 17, 2022, that the Ortiz class suit is ongoing at the New York Supreme Court. Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. GPB Capital Holdings LLC; Automile Holdings, LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group; David Gentile; David Rosenberg; Philip Delzotta; Joseph Delzotta; and other affiliated entities and individuals (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Case No. 604918/2020) In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against GPB, Automile Holdings LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group, David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and individuals. The Complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices of the named Defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products related to the same throughout the State of New York. Plaintiffs allege defendants' collection of fraudulent rebates exceeds $1,000,000. The plaintiffs are seeking class-wide injunctive relief requiring defendant dealerships to disclose financing options, rebates, interest rates, and risk of repossession; monetary and punitive damages for violation of New York General Business Laws, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract; and also seek costs and fees. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. GPB Holdings II, LP is a holding company based in New York. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Heymer Sues Over Motor Parts' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD HEYMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-02085 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022) is a consumer class action brought against Defendant for using its 24-month, standard manufacturer's limited warranty ("Limited Warranty") on the sale of new motorcycles to force Harley-Davidson owners to use genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts and accessories rather than non-Harley-Davidson aftermarket parts and accessories available for its motorcycles, as well as Harley-Davidson authorized dealerships to service their motorcycles. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in order to maximize its "higher-margin parts and accessories" revenue and profit, Harley-Davidson used its Limited Warranty to suppress competition from aftermarket parts and accessories competitors, forcing Harley-Davidson motorcycle owners under warranty to use only Harley-Davidson's own parts, accessories and authorized services. The Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC manufactures and distributes motorcycles. The Company produces a wide variety of motorcycles, bicycles, accessories, and parts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 Email: astraus@milberg.com HOLADOCTOR INC: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HolaDoctor, Inc. The case is styled as Terri Lee Nichols, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HolaDoctor, Inc., Case No. 1 1:22-cv-23874-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HolaDoctor -- https://holadoctor.net/ -- is a leader in health services for Hispanics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com HOLMES STAMP: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holmes Stamp Company. The case is styled as Frank Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Holmes Stamp Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-10080 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Holmes Stamp Company -- https://www.hcbrands.com/ -- is a compact shop selling custom rubber stamps, plus engraving & printing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal HOMENATURE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homenature, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Homenature, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07199 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Homenature -- https://homenature.com/ -- is an eco-friendly, lifestyle home furnishing store offering a line of furniture, accessories, exclusives, vintage, rugs, lighting, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ILLINOIS: Simmons Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Christine Simmons, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled CHRISTINE SIMMONS, et al., Plaintiffs v. JAY ROBERT PRITZKER, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00123, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On March 13, 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order instructing all public and private schools serving pre-kindergarten through 12th grade students to close through March 30, 2020. The order suspended a state law that requires school districts to receive approval before implementing virtual learning, and to hold a public hearing and communicate to teachers, students, and staff 30 days before moving to virtual learning. The school-shutdown order lasted until the end of the 2019-2020 school year. On June 4, 2020, the governor issued an order allowing schools to "transition to limited in-person instruction" after the end of the school year, as long as they complied with certain public-health measures. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants committed multiple violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act by changing the Plaintiffs' educational placements without offering prior notice and reconvening IEP meetings; by not complying with the IDEA's "stay-put provision," which requires schools to keep children with disabilities in their current educational placements while administrative or judicial due-process proceedings are pending; and failing to reimburse them for the out-of-pocket expenses they spent on their children to make up for the schools' failures. The Plaintiffs say the Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and Rehabilitation Act by denying them equal access to educational services and programs compared to their non-disabled peers. They also claim the Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights by taking actions that disparately impacted students with disabilities, and violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process rights by ending in-person instruction. They further asserted that the Defendants violated Illinois law governing special education and a free appropriate public education. Finally, they claim that the Defendants violated RICO by committing mail and wire fraud in their applications for IDEA funding. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 27, 2022, Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Christine Simmons, et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, et al., Case No. 22-3057, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTINE SIMMONS, as Parent and Natural Guardian of T.S. and Individually, et al., are represented by: Rory J. Bellantoni, Esq. BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP, LTD. 300 E. 95th Street New York, NY 10128 Telephone: (646) 850-5035 Defendants-Appellees J.B. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as Governor of Illinois, et al., are represented by: Nadine J. Wichern, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 W. Randolph Street State of Illinois Center Chicago, IL 60601-0000 Telephone: (312) 814-1497 - and - Eric Bernard, Esq. PETRARCA GLEASON BOYLE & IZZO, LLC 1415 W. 22nd Street Oak Brook, IL 60523 Telephone: (630) 928-1200 - and - Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION One N. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602-4331 Telephone: (773) 553-1720 INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Amended Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISYN STAUFFER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Beatty entered an amended proposed scheduling and discovery order as follows: 1. Depositions of Plaintiff(s) May 16, 2023 shall be taken by: 2. Depositions of Defendant(s) May 31, 2023 shall be taken by: 3. 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): June 15, 2023 Defendant(s) expert(s): July 17, 2023 Plaintiff(s) rebuttal expert(s): August 7, 2023 4. Depositions of Class August 17, 2023 Certification expert witnesses must be taken by: 5. The Plaintiff(s) Motion for September 21, 2023 Class Certification and Memorandum in Support shall be filed by: 6. The Defendant(s) Memorandum October 26, 2023 in Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed 35 days following the filing of Plaintiff's motion, no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gPODME at no extra charge.[CC] INTIGRAL INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lewis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTIGRAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02118 (N.D. Ohio, November 22, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a manufacturing employee between September 2022 and November 2022. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were classified by the Defendant as non-exempt and paid them an hourly wage. They were required to perform duties before and after their scheduled shifts. However, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them for all hours worked, including 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 failed to keep records of all of the hours they have worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover, for himself and all other similarly situated manufacturing employees, actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and other further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. Intigral, Inc. manufactures windows, glass, and blinds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com IRVINE COMPANY: Morgan Sues Over Residential Leases' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN ASHLEY MORGAN; and ERIK BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING, INC.; MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and MORGAN GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02136 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff in the complaint challenges a cartel among lessors of multifamily residential real estate leases to artificially inflate the prices of multifamily residential real estate in the United States above competitive levels. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC provides real estate services. The Company owns and manages apartment communities, office buildings, retail centers, yacht marinas, and resort properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com JACKSON'S FOOD: Nunez Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- YUGELY NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON'S FOOD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 534864/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., November 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, Jacksonschips.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the screen reader fails to indicate whether a desired product has been added to the shopping cart or not; (b) the screen reader fails to properly read the available product descriptions; (c) the screen reader loses focus or skips over available text; (d) the screen reader fails to properly describe available links; and (e) the screen reader fails to access the available dropdown menu when navigating on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jackson's Food Company, LLC is an online retail company that sells sweet potato chips. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com JACOBS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Delozier Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Jacobs Solutions 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 21, 2022, that the Company continues to defend the Delozier class suit. On December 22, 2008, a coal fly ash pond at the Kingston Power Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was breached, releasing fly ash waste into the Emory River and surrounding community. In February 2009, TVA awarded a contract to the Company to provide project management services associated with the clean-up. All remediation and dredging were completed in August 2013 by other contractors under direct contracts with TVA. The Company did not perform the remediation, and its scope was limited to program management services. Certain employees of the contractors performing the cleanup work on the project filed lawsuits against the Company beginning in August 2013, alleging they were injured due to the Company's failure to protect the plaintiffs from exposure to fly ash, and asserting related personal injuries. The primary case, Greg Adkisson, et al. v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., case No. 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, consists of 10 consolidated cases. This case and the related cases involve several hundred plaintiffs that were employees of the contractors that completed the remediation and dredging work. The cases are at various stages of litigation, and several of the cases are currently stayed pending resolution of other cases and/or appeal. Additionally, in May 2019, Roane County and the cities of Kingston and Harriman filed a lawsuit against TVA and the Company alleging that they misled the public about risks associated with the released fly ash. In October 2020, the Court granted Jacobs and TVA’s motion to dismiss the Roane County litigation and closed the case. In addition, in November 2019, a resident of Roane County, Margie Delozier, filed a putative class action against TVA and the Company alleging they failed to adequately warn local residents about risks associated with the released fly ash. The Company and TVA filed separate motions to dismiss the Delozier case in April 2020. In February 2021, the Court granted dismissal of the Delozier Complaint with prejudice, with the exception of plaintiffs' nuisance cause of action, which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed in June 2021. In August 2021, Thomas Ryan, a resident of Roane County, filed an action against Jacobs and TVA claiming personal injury and property damage. In June 2022, the Court granted Jacobs' motion to dismiss Ryan's action in its entirety, closing the case. Separately, in February 2020, the Company learned that the district attorney in Roane County recommended that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation investigate issues pertaining to clean up worker safety at Kingston. On November 16, 2021, the Roane County district attorney announced that it had concluded its investigation into issues pertaining to the Kingston coal ash spill cleanup. No indictments were issued. There has been no finding of liability against the Company or that any of the alleged illnesses are the result of exposure to fly ash in any of the above matters. The Company disputes the allegations asserted in all of the above matters and is vigorously defending these matters. Jacobs Solutions Inc. is an engineering services company. KIA AMERICA: Rivera Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zoraida Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America Corporation., Case No. 2:22-cv-04074-MMB (E.D. Pa., Oct. 12, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com KIWI.COM INC: Minevich Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiwi.com Inc. The case is styled as Leon Minevich, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Kiwi.com Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01888-RDM (M.D. Pa., Nov. 29, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Kiwi.com -- https://www.kiwi.com/en/ -- is a leading global travel tech company headquartered in the Czech Republic, employing over 1,500 people worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com L'OREAL USA: Faces Suit Over Toxic Hair Relaxers, Straighteners --------------------------------------------------------------- Kamal Morgan, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a Pensacola law firm is suing the manufacturers of hair care products that have been linked to cancer, particularly among women of color. Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC is part of a class action lawsuit against major beauty brands L'Oreal USA Inc. and Softsheen-Carson Inc. alleging the companies market and sell "toxic and dangerous" hair relaxers and straighteners. The lawsuit follows a recent study that found Black women who use hair relaxing products develop cancers, like uterine cancer, at a disproportionate rare compared to white women. According to AWKO, the products at issue contain "hazardous disrupting chemicals and other toxins that are known to cause devastating and irreversible injuries." Jennifer Hoekstra, an attorney for AWKO, said she fears these manufacturers are enticing an entire generation of women into sterilization. "There's 50 to 75 years of science out there showing that using chemicals that interact with estrogen levels during adolescence gives you an even higher risk of having complications, either for fertility, for cancers, for anything at a young age," Hoekstra said. "So a lot of what people are finding when they started looking at these cases is these are women who started using the product before the age of 15, who often have some sort of complete and total infertility, hysterectomy, some sort of invasive procedure to address the complications or the cancer that they have before the age of 30." Uterine cancer is more common among women who frequently use hair straightening products A National Institutes of Health study published last month followed 33,947 racially and ethnically diverse U.S. women between the ages of 35 and 74 for 11 years, and during that time, 378 uterine cancer cases were diagnosed. The researchers found that women who reported frequent use of hair straightening products, defined as more than four times in the previous year, were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to those who did not use the products. The researchers found no associations with uterine cancer for other hair products that the women reported using, including hair dyes, bleach, highlights or perms. In the study, approximately 60% of participating Black women reported using straighteners. Even though there was no difference in the relationship between straightener use and uterine cancer incidence by race and ethnicity, the adverse health effects may be greater for Black women due to higher prevalence of use, younger age of initiating use, and harsher chemical formulations. Jamison Minniefield, a legal assistant at AWKO, said she has been using L'Oreal and Softsheen-Carson hair relaxers and straighteners since she was 3 years old trying to manage her curly hair. As a young girl, she would throw on an oversized T-shirt, hop on the kitchen counter and wash her hair with the help of her mom. By the time she was 8 years old, she started to see the damaging effect of these products as her hair became thin and brittle, and chemical scars appeared on her head. She said she, and many others, feel constrained to the beauty standards of straight, silky and smooth hair. The natural curls or tight coils many Black women are not deemed beautiful, or sometimes even appropriate and professional, in the workplace. "I'm 24 years old and I did not find who I was until two years ago because of my confidence being so shaken that I did not feel comfortable wearing my natural hair out," Minniefield said. 15 Pensacola area women expected to participate in Florida lawsuit Experiences like Minniefield's are common, according to AWKO officials. The firm has already filed suit against L'Oreal and Softsheen-Carson in Illinois and Missouri and will file in Florida soon. There are currently about 15 women in the Pensacola region planning to participate in the Florida case. Hannah Pfeifler, an associate at AWKO, said in a statement, "This is a pivotal moment for all women who trusted these companies and used their hair relaxers year after year based on belief they were safe to use. These companies knew their hair relaxing products were not safe for either adults or children, yet they marketed these products as thought they were." The chances of being diagnosed with uterine cancer are relatively low, accounting for 3% of all new cancer cases, but is the most common cancer of the female reproductive system making up 65,950 estimated new cases in 2022. Studies show that the rate of new cases of a disease occurring in a specific population over a particular period of time have been rising for Black women in the United States. Hoekstra and her team are finding that more than 70% of people who use these products don't have it applied in a hair salon, and said the products are marketed as gentler and safe, with photos of young girls making it look safe for children. "It's not enough just to have them take it off the shelves for a couple of months and hope that the heat goes away," Hoekstra said of the manufacturers. "At some point there has to be a complete withdrawal from the market or a change in product or reformulation." [GN] LA PETITE ACADEMY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Entered in Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIA THOMPSON, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC., a Delaware corporation; LEARNING CARE GROUP (MI), INC., a Michigan corporation; AIMEE WARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04348-AB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. entered an order approving the Parties' Stipulation to Set Class Certification and setting the following briefing schedule: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file Oct. 2, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 1, 2023 opposition: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to Dec. 1, 2023 file reply: La Petite owns and manages child care and preschool education centers for children. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OQL45r at no extra charge.[CC] LINCARE INC: Prostek Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jennifer Prostek, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and aggrieved v. LINCARE INC., a Delaware corporation; LINCARE PHARMACY SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. VCU293223 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01530-AWI-BAM. The Complaint alleges 10 causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class-wide basis: failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to maintain required records; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices; and penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David L. Cheng, Esq. Min K. Kim, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: dcheng@fordharrison.com mkim@fordharrison.com LM SAN FRANCISCO: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LM San Francisco LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis O. Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LM San Francisco LLC, Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22602431 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 14, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." LM San Francisco LLC (trade name La Mar Cebicheria Peruan) -- https://www.lamarsf.com/ -- is a Peruvian restaurant in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E & L LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: +1 213-213-0000 MACKENZIE-CHILDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mackenzie-Childs, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mackenzie-Childs, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07206 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MacKenzie-Childs -- https://www.mackenzie-childs.com/ -- is a manufacturer of ceramics and retailer of hand-painted imported furniture and home decor, based in Aurora, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com MDL 2981: Class Certified in Consumer Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2981), Case No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order: 1. certifying class under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons in the following U.S. states and territories: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who paid for an app through the Google Play Store or paid for in-app digital content (including subscriptions or ad-free versions of apps) through Google Play Billing on or after August 16, 2016, to the present;" 2. appointing Plaintiffs Matthew Atkinson and Alex Iwamoto as representatives, and confirming interim class counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g); 3. directing the parties to jointly file by January 20, 2023, a proposed plan to give notice to the certified class and an opportunity to opt out. The Court said, "Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is denied, as is the requested exclusion of Dr. Singer's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702." The Court has used the hot tub procedure in other cases, and has found it to be an invaluable tool for vetting Daubert issues and determining questions of class certification, among other uses. For the pending motions, the Court will take up the Daubert challenge to Dr. Singer first. Because this challenge is made in the class certification context, reference to Rule 23 is required. This action by consumer plaintiffs is one of several antitrust cases about the Google Play Store. These cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for centralized proceedings before this Court. The named plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and multiple putative classes of consumers, that defendant Google illegally monopolized the Android app distribution market with anticompetitive practices in the Google Play Store. Google's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' economics expert is denied. The consumers' motion for class certification is granted in main part, subject to some adjustments of the named plaintiffs. Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ORbRP1 at no extra charge.[CC] MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Ponce ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL PONCE, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC., an Illinois corporation; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited partnership, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00531-FWS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order on Medline's unopposed ex parte application and memorandum of points and for leave to file sur-reply and request to strike new evidence submitted with the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification: -- Because leave was not granted by the court for the Plaintiff Maribel Ponce 9 ("Plaintiff") to file a reply brief exceeding 10 pages, which does not comply with the court's standing order that "Replies shall not exceed ten 10 pages", the court declines to consider the materials in the Plaintiff's Reply brief beyond page 10. -- Medline is granted leave to file a Sur-Reply to address only those issues and evidence the Defendant believes were raised for the first time in Plaintiff's Reply brief in pages 1-10. The Defendant's Sur-Reply shall be filed by November 30, 2022, and shall not exceed 10 pages. Medline is a private American healthcare company headquartered in Northfield, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EJSToE at no extra charge.[CC] MICROBILT CORP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Hernandez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MicroBilt Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARIA DEL ROSARIO HERNANDEZ on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROBILT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3-21-cv-04238, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Hernandez brought this action on March 5, 2021, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, against MicroBilt based upon Defendant's widespread violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant allegedly violates the important protections in the FCRA by improperly associating innocent consumers with terrorists, narcotics traffickers, money launderers, arms dealers, and other criminals subject to U.S. government sanctions. The Defendant's conduct deprives consumers of their rights under federal law and results in widespread harm, says the suit. On July 26, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case. On September 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On September 22, 2021, Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson issued a notice and order of Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On October 20, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for Attorney fees. On May 6, 2022, Judge Wolfson issued an order temporarily terminating the Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court held that pending the parties' discussion regarding arbitration, the motion for attorney fees is administratively terminated. The motion may be re-listed, if appropriate. On May 11, 2022, the Clerk's Office was directed to re-open this matter. The Defendant was directed to file a motion to compel arbitration within 30 days. On June 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case. On October 25, 2022, Judge Wolfson denied the Motion to Compel and dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Defendant seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Maria Del Rosario Hernandez v. MicroBilt Corp., Case No. 22-3135, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant MICROBILT CORP is represented by: Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400 Princeton, NJ 08543 Telephone: (609) 951-4125 Plaintiff-Appellee MARIA DEL ROSARIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 MISSION POINT: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHANTA BREWSTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MISSION POINT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-12220-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the following collective: "All employees who worked at Defendant’s Clawson location and were paid late during June of 2022 and/or July of 2022." The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current employees of Mission Point, to recover liquidated damages on late wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and the members of the collective are sufficiently similarly situated that conditional certification of the proposed collective is appropriate, the lawsuit says. Mission Point is a full-service health care and property management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H491o6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: William E. Altman, Esq. Sarah G. Bennett, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 300 Park Street, Suite 370 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 540-8019 E-mail: sbennett@fisherphillips.com waltman@fisherphillips.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: MissPERS Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (MissPERS), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. and JEFFREY S. LORBERBAUM, Case No. 4:20-cv-00005-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifying the following Class: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of Mohawk between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" 2. appointing the Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as Class Representative, and appointing Bernstein Litowitz as Class Counsel. MissPERS brings this action against Mohawk Industries and Jeffrey Lorberbaum, Mohawk's Chief Executive Officer for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of alleged false statements and material omissions made by Defendants about Mohawk's earnings and inventory, particularly the Company's performance in the North American luxury vinyl tile ("LVT") space. The Court's Order of September 29, 2021 on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss summarizes the underlying allegations at length, so the Court will not repeat them here. MissPERS filed its initial putative class Complaint on January 3, 2020, and on March 18, 2020, the Court appointed MissPERS lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as lead class counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Mohawk is an American flooring manufacturer based in Calhoun, Georgia, United States. Mohawk produces floor covering products for residential and commercial applications in North America and residential applications in Europe. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OSHvfa at no extra charge.[CC] MORPHE LLC: Brooks' Bid for Default Judgment Denied W/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORPHE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-1219 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment without prejudice. On Sept. 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for default judgment and noticed the matter for hearing on Dec. 2, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19). The Plaintiff's motion seeks default judgment on claims that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. In this regard, the Plaintiff filed the complaint in the action on June 17, 2020. The complaint is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated for the alleged violations. On Feb. 16, 2021, Judge Barnes denied that motion without prejudice to renewal. In the Feb. 16, 2021 order, Judge Barnes advised the Plaintiff that the motion for default was "defective in several respect." One of those defects was the Plaintiff's reliance on vague factual allegations concerning her "numerous visits to the Defendant's website" including a "2020" visit. Judge Barnes went on to advise the Plaintiff that neither the complaint nor motion for default judgment provided "the dates of" her. And that she failed to "file a declaration in support of the motion for default judgment." Nonetheless, the Plaintiff has again failed to file a declaration in support of the renewed motion for default judgment. And the renewed motion for default judgment again relies simply on the vague and conclusory allegation that she "visited the Defendant's website numerous times, including in 2020." Judge Barnes states that it is true that upon entry of default the complaint's factual allegations regarding liability are taken as true. However, it is also true that the Court need not accept as true conclusory allegations. The Plaintiff has again offered only a conclusory allegation devoid of evidentiary support. For these reasons, Judge Barnes denies the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment without prejudice to renewal of a motion that cures the defects noted. The Dec. 2, 2022 hearing of the Defendant's motion is vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pvpj36r from Leagle.com. NETWORK TRAVEL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 18, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO GIANCASPRO, et al., v. NETWORK TRAVEL EXPERIENCES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05745-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order approving the Stipulation of Plaintiffs to extend deadline to move for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is continued from January 18, 2023 to May 18, 2023. The Plaintiffs are Sergio Giancaspro, Cori Ershowsky, Alexis Geraci, Jamere Bowers, and Adaku Ibekwe and Intervenor Plaintiff Global Growth Capital, S.a.r.l ("Intervenor") A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3il9tDT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq. DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 4050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 979-8700 Facsimile: (310) 979-8701 E-mail:damion.robinson@diamondmccarthy.com NEW YORK, NY: Iwachiw Sues Over Flood Plan Mismanagement -------------------------------------------------------- WALTER IWACHIW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK; STATE OF NEW YORK; JOHN DOES'S; and COMPANY DOE'S, Defendants, Case No. 724808/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Nov. 23, 2022) is an action alleging that the Defendants have made calculated decisions that "deliberately exposed" residents of Queens/Sunnyside/Woodside Floods to Death by drowning, exposure to toxic Black mold, exposure to sewage full of viruses and bacteria depriving them of "constitutional protection of bodily integrity" from the health effects of exposures, while providing superior water sewer drainage system to residents of an affluent Long Island City development, largely white upper income community nearby. New York City is the most populous city in the United States, located at the southern tip of the state of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Scheduling Order Entered in Chapman Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chapman, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,Case No. 2:22-cv-02070 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields entered a scheduling order: -- Counsel are directed to submit a further joint status letter upon resolution of the motion for class certification in the related action. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability. Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company.[CC] NORTHWELL HEALTH: Bruno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bruno, and all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH AT HOME; Case No. 2:22-cv-07181 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against the Defendant who failed to pay minimum compensations. When the Defendant assigned an employee to the On-Call position, the Defendant would pay the employee a flat hourly rate of $72 for a shift of 8 hours, which equates to a $9.00 hourly wage rate. The New York State Minimum Wage Rate exceeded $9.00 per hour. The Defendant engaged in a scheme to avoid hiring people at the proper minimum wage by offering its current employees supplemental work to be paid at a rate less than the prevailing minimum wage. The Defendant failed to keep accurate and sufficient payroll and time records, as required by law. The Defendant did not maintain sufficient payroll and time records to determine the weekly pay and hours worked by the Plaintiff and FLSA Class. The Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of NYLL by failing to provide the Plaintiff with an accurate paystub each week that the Plaintiff was paid by the Defendant. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an accurate statement of wages with each payment of wages that set forth the Plaintiff's hours worked, rates of pay, gross wages, credits claimed, deductions, and net wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was initially hired as a salaried supervisor by the Defendant. The Defendant is the largest healthcare provider and health system in the State of New York and provides health services to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan El-Hag, Esq. EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C 777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101 White Plains, N.Y, 10604 Phone: (914) 218-6190 Fax: (914) 206-4176 Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com Web: www.elhaglaw.com NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Plaintiffs' Settlement Notice Plan Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nova Lifestyle 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 18, 2022, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California rejected the proposed plan of plaintiffs to provide settlement notice to putative class members due to its inadequacy. On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the "Barney Action"). Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently appointed as lead plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities acquiring Nova's stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460 million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated sales in 2016 and 2017 by recognizing significant sales to two allegedly non-existent customers. Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these representations was exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha website in which it was claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers. Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement") with the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement, and without admitting to any wrongdoing, fault, or liability, the Company agreed to a payment of $750,000 to completely resolve the Barney Action. The $750,000 would be funded by the remainder of any retention under applicable directors and officer liability insurance with the remainder paid by the directors and officer liability insurer. The settlement provided for the class members’ complete release of all claims against the Company and the named defendants with respect to any of the matters alleged in the litigation. The Settlement was subject to various conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and approval by the Court. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 29, 2022, the Court denied the Barney plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Certify a Settlement Class and to Approve the Settlement. The Court held that plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing the prerequisites to class certification of adequacy of class counsel, numerosity, and the superiority of class certification in fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court similarly concluded that plaintiffs had failed to make a threshold showing that the settlement was fair and adequate. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' proposed plan for providing notice of the settlement to putative class members, finding that it was inadequate under the circumstances. Nova designs, manufactures and sells modern home furniture for middle class and urban consumers in diverse markets worldwide. OKCOIN USA INC: Nguyen Suit removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Nguyen, Nader George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OKCOIN USA INC., Case No. CGC-22-601712 was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06022-KAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Okcoin -- https://www.okcoin.com/ -- is one of the world's largest and fastest growing cryptocurrency exchanges.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth Antonia Kramer, Esq. Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 635-0631 Fax: (415) 599-8088 Email: elizabeth@eko.law julie@eko.law kevin@eko.law - and - Trenton Ross Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tkashima@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Antonia Isabella Stabile, Esq. Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq. Steven Edward Swaney, Esq. VENABLE LLP 101 California, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 653-3750 Fax: (415) 653-3755 Email: astabile@venable.com jpcart@venable.com seswaney@venable.com ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Aptor Consolidated Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak 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 17, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Aptor Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On August 6, 2021, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California entitled Aptor v. Peizer, Case No. 2:21-cv-06371, alleging breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the Company against Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, Richard A. Berman, Michael Sherman, Diane Seloff, Robert Rebak, Gustavo Giraldo and Katherine Quinn, and contribution against Terren S. Peizer and Brandon H. LaVerne. On October 6, 2021, a similar shareholder derivative action was filed in the same Court, entitled Anderson v. Peizer, Case No. 2:21-cv-07998, for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets against Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, Curtis Medeiros, Richard A. Berman, Michael Sherman, Edward Zecchini, Diane Seloff, Robert Rebak, Gustavo Giraldo, and Katherine Quinn, and contribution against Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros. On December 1, 2021, a similar shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Vega v. Peizer, Case No. 1:21-cv-01701, for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets against Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, Curtis Medeiros, Richard A. Berman, Michael Sherman, Edward Zecchini, Diane Seloff, Robert Rebak, Gustavo Giraldo, and Katherine Quinn. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing or causing the Company to violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Consolidated Class Action discussed above. The plaintiffs seek damages (and contribution from the officers) in an indeterminate amount. On December 7, 2021, the Court in the Central District of California consolidated the two Central District of California actions under the Aptor case caption and number (the "Consolidated Derivative Action"), stayed the action pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the Consolidated Class Action and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the Consolidated Class Action. On February 7, 2022, the Court in the District of Delaware extended the deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint in the Vega action to April 8, 2022. On March 21, 2022 the Court in the District of Delaware granted plaintiff's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for Central District of California in the interest of judicial efficiency due to the Consolidated Class Action and Consolidated Derivative Action already pending in that district, and that same day the case was transferred into the United States District Court for Central District of California and given the new Case No. 2:22-cv-01873-CAS-AS. On April 11, 2022, the Court stayed the action pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the Consolidated Class Action and ordered plaintiffs to inform defendants regarding their intention to amend their initial complaint within thirty (30) days of said ruling. Although all of the claims asserted in these actions purport to seek recovery on behalf of the Company, the Company will incur certain expenses due to indemnification and advancement obligations with respect to the defendants. The Company understands that defendants believe these actions are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Braun Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak 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 17, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Braun Securities class suit in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. On February 28, 2022, a purported securities class action was filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, entitled Braun v. Ontrak, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV07174. The plaintiff filed this action purportedly on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the 9.50% Series A Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock (the "Preferred stock") of Ontrak pursuant to Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with Ontrak's August 21, 2020 initial public stock offering, its September 2020 through December 2020 "at market" offering, and its December 16, 2020 follow-on stock offering (collectively, the "Offerings"). The plaintiff brings this action against the Company; its officers: Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, and Christopher Shirley; its board members: Richard A. Berman, Sharon Gabrielson, Gustavo Giraldo, Katherine B. Quinn, Robert Rebak, Diane Seloff, Michael Sherman, and Edward Zecchini; and the investment banking firms that acted as underwriters for the Offerings: B. Riley Securities, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., William Blair & Company, LLC, Aegis Capital Corp., Insperex LLC (f/k/a Incapital LLC), The Benchmark Company, LLC, Boenning & Scatteredgood, Inc., Colliers Securities, LLC, Kingswood Capital Markets, and ThinkEquity. The plaintiff asserts three causes of action alleging that Ontrak violated § 11, §12(a)(2), and § 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, respectively, (1) by failing to disclose facts required to be disclosed under SEC Regulation S-K items 105 and 303 – that Aetna had turned off the data feed of customer records to Ontrak citing dissatisfaction with the Company's value proposition and billing practices and thereafter submitted a CAP to which Ontrak's senior executives were unable to effectively respond to; and (2) by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements in its Registration Statements and Prospectuses: (a) regarding Ontrak's growing customer base; (b) regarding its ability to scale its operations; (c) that revenue from a limited number of its customers would continue; (d) that its services are provided to customers continuously; (e) that revenue increases were attributable to continued expansion of the Ontrak program; and (f) regarding the healthcare experience of its executives. The plaintiff seeks damages in an indeterminate amount. On July 7, 2022, the defendants filed demurrers to the complaint. On October 4, 2022, the Court issued its ruling, allowing the case to proceed but with a narrowed scope. Specifically, of the six alleged misleading statements, only two remain (that Ontrak had a growing "growing customer base" and that Ontrak's revenue growth was attributed to "[t]he continued expansion of [its] Ontrak program with [its] existing health plan customers'). The Court sustained the Company's demurrer to the second cause of action, for violation of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, with leave to amend. The Company believes that the remaining allegations lack merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ontrak 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 17, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Farhar Securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed in the same court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02460. On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions under the Farhar case ("Consolidated Class Action"), appointed Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleges that the Company and Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants: (1) misrepresented to investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors; (2) failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP; and (3) failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4, et seq. The motion is fully briefed and has been taken under submission, with no oral argument. The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. Ontrak Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Halper Sadeh Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Halper Sadeh LLC, an investor rights law firm, is investigating the following companies for potential violations of the federal securities laws and/or breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders relating to: Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPNT)'s sale to Indivior PLC. Per the agreement, Indivior would acquire Opiant for $20.00 per share in cash, plus up to $8.00 per share in contingent value rights that may become payable in the event that certain net revenue milestones are achieved during the relevant seven-year period by OPNT003 after its approval and launch. If you are an Opiant shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and options. Washington Federal, Inc. (NASDAQ: WAFD)'s merger with Luther Burbank Corporation. If you are a Washington shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and options. Myovant Sciences Ltd. (NYSE: MYOV)'s sale to Sumitovant Biopharma Ltd. for $27.00 per share in cash. If you are a Myovant shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and options. Shareholders are encouraged to contact the firm free of charge to discuss their legal rights and options. Please call Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or email sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com. Halper Sadeh LLC represents investors all over the world who have fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Halper Sadeh LLC Daniel Sadeh, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. (212) 763-0060 sadeh@halpersadeh.com zhalper@halpersadeh.com https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN] PAPA MURPHYS: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa Murphys International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Papa Murphys International, LLC, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-01789-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Papa Murphy's -- http://www.papamurphys.com/-- is a take-and-bake pizza company based in Vancouver, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 555 South Hope Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2678 Phone: (415) 836-2536 Fax: (415) 836-2501 Email: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com PHRG MANAGEMENT: Wachter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN WACHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHRG MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a POWER HOME REMODELING GROUP, Case No. 2:22-cv-07155 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid wages and unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated as Customer Development Representatives (CDRs) who went door-to-door to set up appointments between potential customers and Defendant's Sales Representatives. Upon hiring, the CDRs enter into an eight-week training period where they spend approximately 40 hours per week being trained and two hours per week doing mandatory studying and homework. The CDRs are only paid $1,000.00 per week for their training period plus bonuses. They are not paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The training period consists of approximately 45 hours per week of training. It also includes about five hours per week studying and performing homework such as measuring their own windows. The studying and homework are required and monitored by Defendant. The RCs are only paid $500.00 per week. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid less than New York State's minimum wage and do not receive an overtime premium for the hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the suit. The Plaintiff also individually brings this action pursuant to the NYSHRL for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of his disability and is entitled to recover back pay, front pay, emotional damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. PHRG Management is a home remodeling company that operates throughout the United States and primarily installs roofing, siding, and windows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Vagnini, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 POSTMATES INC: Arbitration & Dismissal in Immediato Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAMON IMMEDIATO, STEPHEN LEVINE, and ERIC WICKBERG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants v. POSTMATES, INC., Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 22-1015 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the district court's grant of the Appellee's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case. The genesis of this appeal can be traced back to the district court's grant of the Appellee's motion to compel arbitration. The appeal requires the First Circuit to determine whether couriers who deliver goods from local restaurants and retailers are transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce such that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act). The district court concluded that they were not exempt, compelled arbitration of the parties' dispute, and dismissed the appellants' suit. The Appellants assign error: they insist that the First Circuit's decision in Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., in which it held that Amazon delivery drivers responsible for the final leg of interstate package deliveries were exempt from the FAA, demands a different outcome. Defendant-Appellee Postmates operates an online and mobile platform that enables customers to order take-out meals from local restaurants as well as comestibles and sundries from local grocery stores. Once an order is placed, the Appellee arranges -- at the customer's behest -- for a courier to deliver the order. As relevant here, nearly all orders placed in Massachusetts (99.66%) are fulfilled within the state, and the average distance travelled by a courier during a delivery is about 3.7 miles. Individuals register as couriers through a mobile application. As part of that registration, they must accept the Appellee's "Fleet Agreement," which generally sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties and -- in the bargain -- classifies couriers as independent contractors. The agreement contains a mutual arbitration provision that is "governed exclusively" by the FAA and applies to "any and all claims" against the Appellee. Such claims include those that arise from disputes over the terms of the Fleet Agreement itself, as well as those that sound in federal, state, or local law. The mutual arbitration provision requires that all such disputes be resolved through final and binding arbitration in accordance with rules set forth by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The provision also includes a class action waiver and forecloses the arbitration of representative actions. Couriers may opt out of the mutual arbitration provision within 30 days of accepting the Fleet Agreement but are otherwise bound by its terms. Plaintiffs-Appellants Damon Immediato, Stephen Levine, and Eric Wickberg worked as couriers for the Appellee, making deliveries in the greater Boston area. All of them consented to the Fleet Agreement without opting out of the mutual arbitration provision. Ostensibly aggrieved by the conditions under which they worked, they filed suit in a Massachusetts state court on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated couriers. They alleged that the appellee had misclassified them as independent contractors when they were in fact employees. They further alleged that, as such, they were entitled to employee benefits and protections afforded under Massachusetts law, including the reimbursement of necessary business expenses, the payment of a minimum wage, and paid sick leave. The Appellee removed the suit to the federal district court, and moved to compel arbitration. The Appellants objected, contending that they belonged to a class of workers exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. Section 1. The district court ruled that the exemption did not apply, granted the Appellee's motion, and stayed the court case pending the completion of arbitration. In arbitration, the Appellee made offers of judgment to the Appellants individually. Those offers were accepted. The district court then approved the awards and dismissed the case. The timely appeal followed. In it, the Appellants challenge both the district court's order compelling arbitration and the resultant order of dismissal. The Appellants contend that they belong to a class of workers encompassed by the residual clause of section 1 and are therefore outside the grasp of the FAA. Alternatively, they contend that if they do not fall within the section 1 exemption (because they are not workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"), then their contracts with the Appellee must perforce be outside the coverage of section 2. The First Circuit concludes that the couriers do not make deliveries on behalf of wholesalers or distributors that transport goods to local retail establishments. Instead, they make deliveries to fulfill local retail sales. Walling makes clear that such sales should not be considered "in commerce." The short of it is that couriers who deliver meals and goods as the result of local purchases from local vendors are not within a class of workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" who are exempt from the FAA under section 1. The FAA therefore applies to their agreements with the Appellee unless those agreements fall outside the coverage of section 2. It is to that question that the First Circuit now turns. As a fallback, the Appellants argue that if they are not deemed to be workers "engaged in" interstate commerce for the purpose of section 1, the FAA cannot apply to them at all because their work would then fall outside the coverage provision of section 2, which extends the FAA's reach to all contracts "involving" interstate commerce. They reason that if they are not workers "engaged in" interstate commerce, then their contracts cannot conceivably "involve" commerce under the Act. That argument cannot withstand scrutiny, the First Circuit concludes. In sum, the Appellants' employment contracts are covered under section 2 of the Act because couriers who make local retail deliveries affect interstate commerce, but those contracts are not exempt under section 1 because the Appellants are not part of a class of workers actively engaged in the interstate transport of goods. The district court was therefore required to compel arbitration according to the terms agreed to by the parties. In view of the foregoing, the First Circuit need go no further. For the reasons it elucidated, it affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4848v3n8 from Leagle.com. Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- with whom Michelle Cassorla -- mcassorla@llrlaw.com -- and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. were on brief, for the Appellants. Theane Evangelis -- TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com -- with whom Blaine H. Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Dhananjay S. Manthripragada -- DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Shaun A. Mathur -- smathur@gibsondunn.com -- Allison L. Mather -- amather@gibsondunn.com -- and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP were on brief, for the Appellee. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Adeghe Sues Over False, Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------- Aja Adeghe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-10025 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its 2.72 liters of detergent marketed as sufficient for 64 loads of laundry under the Tide brand ("Product"). Though the number 64 grabs the purchaser's attention, a difficult-to see white diamond follows the word "loads" Only if the container is turned around and the consumer navigates hundreds of words of varying size and fonts will they learn the amount of detergent is only sufficient for "approximately 64 loads as measured just below Bar 1 on cap." The icon shows "just below Bar 1" corresponds to "Medium Loads," even though this is the smallest size listed, less than "large" (Bar 3) and "full" (Bar 5). For the majority of Americans who do laundry in loads reasonably characterized as "full," they will only be able to get half as many, or 32 loads of laundry, from the Product when run at high efficiency ("he"). Representing the Product can provide 64 loads when these are the smallest size loads of laundry is misleading because consumers like the Plaintiff expect transparency. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product 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 $12.99 for 92 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 stores in New Rochelle, New York. The Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio corporation with a principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County who owns and controls the Tide brand of laundry detergents.[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 - and - JAMES CHUNG LAW OFFICE 43-22 216th St Bayside NY 11361 Phone: (718) 461-8808 Email: Jchung_77@msn.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Thomas Sues Over False, Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00914 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its menthol lozenges under the Vicks VapoCool brand promoted for "Severe" conditions described as "Honey Lemon Chill" ("Product"). The Product is a "Max Strength" oral anesthetic based on menthol, providing "Fast Relief" because it "Starts Working in Seconds." Below "Soothes Sore Throat" is a lozenge beneath a dripping honey dipper, propped up against a lemon wedge, dispensing what appears to be cool vapor into a mouth and nose. Consumers viewing "Honey Lemon Chill" understand this statement as referring to ingredients in the Product, with "chill" referring to menthol. While the active and inactive ingredients disclose menthol and honey, they also reveal the absence of any lemon. Consumers viewing the lemon wedge will expect lemon ingredients, understood as a source of vitamin C and believed to promote immunity. Demulcents are bland, inert agents that soothe and relieve irritation of inflamed or abraded surfaces such as mucous membranes. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has approved elm bark, gelatin, glycerin, and pectin as demulcent ingredients. Though "soothe" can be used to refer to a product's characteristics such as its feel and taste, "Soothes Sore Throat" tells consumers a product will contain demulcent ingredients. While sugar ingredients, such as the Product's corn syrup and sucrose, can function as demulcents, the label should identify the Product as "Oral anesthetic formulated in a soothing sugar base." This statement would tell consumers about the Product separately from its required labeling indications. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold for a premium price of not less than $4.99 for eighteen lozenges, excluding tax and sales, a higher price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including Family Dollar in Buffalo, New York. The Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio corporation with a principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County who owns and controls the Vicks brand of OTC products.[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 PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for a second amended scheduling order as follows: a. Counsel shall serve any rebuttal December 16, 2022 reports on counsel for every other party and shall conclude expert depositions no later than: b. The plaintiff shall file any December 21, 2022 reply to the defendants' response to the motion for class certification by: c. Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 30 days following this court's resolution of the plaintiff's pending motion for class certification: Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FfABx0 at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Hazel Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping --------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE HAZEL; ROXANE EVANS; VALERIE TORRES; and RHONDA HYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.; and ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-TSH (N.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Prudential embedded ActiveProspect's software in the computer code on its website to optimize its lead generation efforts. Prudential benefits financially from collecting information provided by potential customers, or "leads," who indicate an interest in purchasing services such as life insurance. Adding ActiveProspect's software allowed both companies to surreptitiously observe and record visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications, including their entry of Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"). When users seeking a life insurance quote enter private information on Prudential.com, Prudential shares those communications with ActiveProspect in real time, without notifying users and without first obtaining their consent. The communications Prudential shares with ActiveProspect include its users' geolocation and answers regarding their private personal and medical information, such as age, height, weight, information regarding medical conditions, prescribed medications, and hospitalization history. ActiveProspect's software purports to increase the value of Prudential's leads by harvesting extra information about each person and independently documenting the information they provided. By wiretapping website user's communications, the Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, says the suit. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. provides financial services throughout the United States and several locations worldwide. The Company offers a variety of products and services, including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension, and retirement related services, as well as administration and asset management. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nina Gliozzo, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. Nina Gliozzo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com ngliozzo@girardsharp.com RENOVACARE INC: Continues to Defend Boller Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RenovaCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Boller shareholder class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 16, 2021, Gabrielle A. Boller filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Boller Lawsuit"), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company's board of directors (collectively, the "Boller Defendants'). The Boller Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Action, the Boller Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Boller Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Boller Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims in the Boller Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. Renovacare, Inc. is a development-stage biotechnology and medical device company based in Arizona. RENOVACARE INC: Continues to Defend Solakian Shareholder Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------- RenovaCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Solakian Shareholder suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 21, 2021, Michael Solakian, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Solakian Lawsuit"), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company's board of directors (collectively, the "Solakian Defendants"). The Solakian Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Action, the Solakian Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Solakian Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Solakian Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims in the Solakian Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Solakian Defendants. Renovacare, Inc. is a development-stage biotechnology and medical device company based in Arizona. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Case Management Order Entered in Haston Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered a case management order as follows: a. Initial disclosures required by December 6, 2022 Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made by: b. Any motions to amend the pleadings February 20, 2023 or add new parties shall be filed by: c. Class Certification Discovery April 21, 2023 shall be completed by: d. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class May 21, 2023 Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: e. Defendants' Memorandum in June 20, 2023 Opposition to Class Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: f. The Plaintiffs' Reply July 5, 2023 Memorandum in support of class certification, if any, shall be filed by: Resurgent provides financial services. Frontline is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XIPWh1 at no extra charge.[CC] ROGERS GARDENS NEWPORT: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rogers Gardens Newport Beach. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rogers Gardens Newport Beach, Case No. 1:22-cv-10033 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Roger's Gardens -- https://www.rogersgardens.com/ -- is a destination home and garden store for customers seeking creative ideas and unique products for outdoor and indoor living.[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 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jose Soto, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., DBA SAFELITE AUTO GLASS, a Delaware Corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2217141 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 25, 2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02092. The Plaintiff files the Complaint for the Defendant alleged failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and failure to pay for non-compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment; failure to pay overtime; and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Phone: (949) 526-7906 Facsimile: (949) 383-2387 Email: jmhoffman@vorys.com - and - Adam J. Rocco, Esq. Michael J. Shoenfelt, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, Oh 43215 Phone: (614) 464-5497 Facsimile: (614) 719-4760 Email: ajrocco@vorys.com mjshoenfelt@vorys.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bennett Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2022CH08767 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 10, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05540 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. -- https://www.samsung.com/us/ -- manufactures electronic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. Robert W. Harrer, Esq. CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C. 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 858-3239 Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com rob.harrer@cclc-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Julie B. Porter, Esq. SALVATORE PRESCOTT PORTER & PORTER PLLC 1010 Davis Street Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 283-5711 Email: porter@sppplaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Hasson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HASSON, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01669-WSH (W.D. Pa., Nov. 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected personally identifiable information, including without limitation, first and last name, demographic information, date of birth, and product registration information (collectively, "PII"), for failing to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been compromised. According to the complaint, on September 2, 2022, Samsung announced that malicious hackers had breached Samsung's systems and made off with its customers' valuable PII (the "Data Breach"). As a result of Samsung's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands of cyber-criminals. the Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial increased risk of identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future, says the suit. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412).231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 550-1250 Facsimile: ekim@lcllp.com SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Misappropriates Customer Funds, Pierce Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Pierce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, Caroline Ellison, Zixiao "Gary" Wang, Nishad Singh, Armanino, LLP, and Prager Metis CPAs, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07444-JSW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2022) alleges that the Defendants misappropriate customer funds and cheating at the expense of FTX group exchange participants. According to the complaint, the Defendants' scheme to defraud the public about the nature of their enterprise, and the FTX Group's auditors' participation in the FTX Group enterprise. Mr. Pierce deposited $19,986.00 in an interest-bearing account with FTX US on January 5, 2022. He used the FTX US mobile app to request a withdrawal of $19,461.00 on November 7, 2022. Mr. Pierce has not received his money. He is one of more than a million depositors who lost their money in the FTX Group's collapse. Accordingly, Bankman-Fried and his lieutenants first built a cryptocurrency-focused trading firm (Alameda Research), and then a family of cryptocurrency exchanges (FTX and FTX US). They proceeded to use their technical skills and inside knowledge to systematically advantage Alameda -- and thus themselves -- over other users of their exchanges. And as the money available to them grew, it appears they treated all the FTX Group's finances as a slush fund -- using secret software to misappropriate at least $10 billion of customer assets to cover trading losses, fund venture investments, and spend lavishly on personal boondoggles, says the suit. The FTX Group did all of this while executing a calculated scheme to defraud the public as to the criminal nature of their enterprise, in particular on television, on podcasts, on social media, and online, the Plaintiff claims. Bankman-Fried is the founder and former leader of the FTX Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811 Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Steven C. Vondran, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN, PC One Sansome Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (877) 276-5084 E-mail: steve@vondranlegal.com SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought in Johnson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON; CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; SHAUNA LEE LANDIS; JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; RAFAEL DIAZ; KIMBERLY JEAN MCLEOD and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually; PAUL WYNN, individually; JON BILLINGS, individually; RICK BESSINGER, individually; ROBERT GUILLEN, individually; Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation setting the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class January 13, 2023 Certification shall be due on: 2. Defendants' Opposition to February 17, 2023 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be due on: 3. The Plaintiffs' Reply to March 10, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be due on: 4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' March 23, 2023 Motion for Class Certification shall be on: San Bernardino County, officially the County of San Bernardino, is a county located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of California, and is located within the Inland Empire area. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vrp0AS at no extra charge.[CC] SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss or Stay Carralez Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Maria Carralez, Plaintiff v. Satellite Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01613-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay. The Defendant moves to dismiss or stay Carralez's wage-and-hour class and collective action based on a prior-filed, state-court action titled Soliman v. Satellite Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-CV-387218. Judge Mueller submits the Defendant's motion on the briefs, without hearing. In September 2021, Tiffany Soliman filed a class and representative action against Satellite in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging it did not provide minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest periods, expense reimbursements and sick leave pay, among others. Soliman seeks to represent members of a class consisting of Satellite's hourly, non-exempt employees in California. In June 2022, the state court dismissed Soliman's sick leave claims under California Labor Code sections 218.5 and 246 because those sections do not provide a private right of action for employees. Soliman's operative state complaint now omits any references to unpaid sick leave. Although Soliman was filed a year ago, it appears no discovery has occurred, and no class has been certified. In September 2022, Carralez filed a class action under Rule 23 and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in this Court, alleging it not provide minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest breaks and sick leave pay, among others. Unlike Soliman, Carralez brings her sick leave claim, in part, under California Labor Code section 233, which prohibits employers from discouraging employees from using their accrued sick leave, Cal. Lab. Code Section 233(c). For most of her class claims, Carralez seeks to represent Satellite's California employees. For her overtime wage class claim and collective claim, she seeks to represent both California and out-of-state employees. Satellite now moves to dismiss or stay Carralez's complaint based on the prior-filed Soliman action. Carralez opposes the motion. Satellite has replied. Judge Mueller, citing Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 917 (1976), explains that to determine whether dismissal or stay is proper based on a parallel state proceeding, courts consider the following eight factors: (1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any property at stake; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court proceedings can adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues before the federal court. Judge Mueller holds that a dismissal or stay is unwarranted because Soliman would not resolve all issues in the case. First, Satellite concedes Soliman would not resolve Carralez's sick leave claim under section 233. Second, the Soliman action, limited to Satellite's California employees, would not resolve Carralez's nationwide class and collective claims, which concern Satellite's out-of-state employees. For these reasons, Judge Mueller concludes that Satellite has not shown Carralez's action is substantially similar to Soliman. She denies Satellite's motion to dismiss or stay. Because Soliman would not resolve all issues currently raised in the case, she need not consider other factors of the Colorado River doctrine. Accordingly, the motion hearing and status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for Dec. 9, 2022 are vacated. The status conference is reset for Dec. 15, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/43nme7t4 from Leagle.com. SELENE FINANCE: Deadline Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC WEINBERGER and KAREN WEINBERGER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE LP and NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICES, Case No. 0:22-cv-60785-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Parties file a joint motion to continue the class certification deadline to January 6, 2023. Selene Finance provides special assistance programs for borrowers suffering unforeseen hardships caused by COVID-19, including forbearance of mortgage payments. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VA53HI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica L. Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP 111 NE 1st St., Floor 8 #8517 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Service E-mail: service@advocacypa.com Primary E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com - and - Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-7062 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com SFBSC MGMT: $6.5M Class Settlement in Roe Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, enters Final Approval Order in the case, JANE ROE, et al., Plaintiffs v. SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-03616-LB, Nos. 16-cv-03371-LB, 17-cv-00138-LB, 17-cv-05288-LB, 17-cv-06971-LB, 19-cv-03960-LB (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs in two putative class and collective actions -- Roe v. SFBSC Management, LLC, No. 14-cv-03616-LB (San Francisco Action), and Roe 1 and 2 v. Deja Vu Services, Inc., No. 19-cv-03960-LB (San Diego Action transferred to this district) -- are current and former exotic dancers who sued nightclubs and their management companies, claiming wage-and-hour violations based on the Defendants' allegedly misclassifying them as independent contractors and engaging in "unlawful tip sharing." On Aug. 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class and collective action on behalf of dancers who performed at eleven nightclubs in San Francisco, California, claiming that the nightclubs and their management company (SFBSC Management) violated wage-and-hours laws (the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the California Labor Code, and other state laws) by misclassifying the dancers as independent contractors (when they in fact were employees) and by "unlawful tip-splitting." The parties previously reached a settlement in the San Francisco Action that the Court approved: (1) $5 million that had the following tiers: a first-tier cash pool of $2 million, a second-tier cash pool of up to $1 million, and a dance-fee pool of up to $1 million that involved redeeming the fees (the mandatory costs of the performances) by scheduling a performance; and (2) changed business practices that allowed dancers to elect to be employees or independent contractors. The dancers could opt for a cash payment (up to $800 depending on the number of months worked) or the dance-fee payment. The Ninth Circuit reversed that approval and remanded the case. The parties then reached a global settlement in the San Francisco and San Diego cases, and the Court consolidated the cases for settlement purposes and approved the settlement preliminarily. The Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney's fees, costs, and enhancement payments. The Court held a fairness hearing on Nov. 17, 2022. The Class is "the group of all Entertainers who Performed at one or more of the Clubs at any time during the applicable Class Periods." There are 8,402 class members. There are two Class Periods, to reflect the different timelines and defendants in the lawsuits. The San Francisco Class Period is "the time period from Aug. 8, 2010 to Nov. 16, 2018 for Entertainers who Performed as Independent Professional Entertainers (independent contractors) at one or more of the San Francisco Clubs." The Greater California Class Period is "the time period from Feb. 8, 2017 to Nov. 16, 2018 for Entertainers who Performed as Independent Professional Entertainers (independent contractors) at one or more of the Greater California Clubs." The total Settlement Consideration is at least $6.5 million (all non-reversionary), divided into a Cash Pool of $4 million, a Dance Fee Pool of $500,000, and changed business practices valued at a minimum of $2 million. Settlement Class Members who do not elect to receive Dance Fee Payments will receive a Cash Payment from the Cash Pool (or more accurately from the Net Cash Fund plus the Unclaimed Dance Fee Pool) automatically, meaning, without filing any claim form. The Defendants will fund the Cash portion in four installments: (1) an initial payment to the Notice and Administrative Fund within five business days of the Preliminary Approval Date; (2) an initial payment of $2 million by March 1, 2022; (3) a second payment of $1 million by March 1, 2023; and (4) a final payment of the remainder by March 1, 2024. Payments will be made to claimants in three installments on a pro rata basis (after the payments in the last section) as follows: (1) after approval, and assuming no appeal, but otherwise on the Effective Date (allowing for any appeal), the following will be paid out of the initial installment within 30 days: the initial pro-rata installment payment to the Cash Pool recipients, the LWDA's PAGA payment, the Enhancement Payments, and fifty percent of the Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Award; and (2) again within 30 days (assuming no appeal) after the second and third payments, the Cash Pool Recipients will receive their second and third installments, and the attorneys will receive their remaining twenty-five-percent installment payments. Settlement Class Members have 180 days to cash the checks. If checks are uncashed after 180 days (after skip tracing), then Simpluris, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, will deliver the funds to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund, to be held for the Settlement Class Members (but without providing their names so as to preserve their privacy). The settlement has further relief in the form of changed business practices. The release is a release of all claims under federal or state law that were pleaded or could have been pleaded under the facts alleged in the complaints or the Amended Complaints for Settlement, plus any claims "that are reasonably related" to those pleadings, "from the beginning of Settlement Class Members' applicable Class Period(s) up to and including Nov. 16, 2018." The deadline for Settlement Class Members to submit a Dance Fee Election Form or request exclusion from or object to the settlement was Oct. 17, 2022. The Settlement Administrator received 187 valid Dance Fee Election Forms (one was submitted late but the parties stipulated that it be accepted) and 20 requests for exclusion. Besides the settling objectors, two other Settlement Class Members objected to the settlement. Judge Beeler has evaluated the settlement agreement for overall fairness and concludes that it is free of collusion and approval is appropriate. She grants final approval to the settlement. She then approves $50,000 in attorney's fees for the settling objectors' counsel but reduces the total enhancement payments for the settling objectors from $53,000 to $43,000. She also approves enhancement payments for the settling objectors, but for the three objectors who requested more than $5,000, she reduces their payments to $5,000. Thus, Rashele Hamren, Devon Locke, and Diana Tejada are entitled only to $5,000 each. The Class Counsel moved for a total of $2,166,666.71 in attorney's fees (33% of the Settlement Consideration) and $55,423.07 in costs. Judge Beeler awards both amounts. Based on the counsel's declarations and the results they achieved on, she finds the requested fees to be reasonable and appropriate as a percentage of the common fund, supported by a lodestar cross-check (with the Plaintiffs' suggested multiplier). The Class Counsel is also entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket costs. The record establishes sufficiently the reasonableness of the requested expenses. Judge Beeler approves the requested amounts of $8,164.32 (San Francisco Action) and $47,258.75 (San Diego Action), totaling $55,423.07. The Plaintiffs moved for Enhancement Payments totaling $35,000: $3,500 each for Jane Roes 1 and 2 in the San Diego Action, $5,000 each for Jane Roes 1 and 3 in the San Francisco Action, and $3,000 each for Jane Roes 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 22 in the San Francisco Action. Judge Beeler grants the motion as to the four Class Representatives only. The record establishes sufficiently the efforts of the Class Representatives. Judge Beeler thus approves Enhancement Payments totaling $17,000: $3,500 each for Jane Roes 1 and 2 in the San Diego Action, and $5,000 each for Jane Roes 1 and 3 in the San Francisco Action. She denies the requested $3,000 payments for Jane Roes 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 22 in the San Francisco Action, because they are not Class Representatives. Judge Beeler then confirms the appointment of Jane Roes 1 and 2 from the San Diego Action and Jane Roes 1 and 3 from the San Francisco Action as the Class Representatives. She also confirms the appointment of attorneys from three law firms as the Class Counsel for settlement purposes only: Joel Young and Steven Tidrick of The Tidrick Law Firm, LLP; Jason Thompson of Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; and Megan Bonanni of Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, P.C. She further confirms the appointment of Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, and approves payment of Administrative Costs of up to $150,000. The notice plan is approved. The notice met all legal prerequisites: it was the best notice practicable, satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2), adequately advised class members of their rights under the settlement agreement, met the requirements of due process, and complied with the court's order regarding court notice. Judge Beeler confirms the consolidation of the San Francisco and San Diego Actions for settlement purposes only. The 20 Settlement Class Members who requested exclusion from the Settlement Class are excluded from the settlement. The late-filed Dance Fee Election Form, which was postmarked Oct. 20, 2022, is valid. The Settlement Administrator must distribute the settlement funds as specified in the Settlement Agreement. Except as otherwise provided by the Order, the parties and the objectors will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. The San Francisco and San Diego Actions are dismissed, and the claims are released as provided in the Settlement Agreement. Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order, the Court retains jurisdiction over: (1) effectuating and implementing the Settlement Agreement and its terms; (2) supervising all aspects of the administration of the Settlement Agreement; (3) determining whether, in the event that an appeal is taken from any aspect of this Final Approval Order, the appellant must post a bond or provide other security, and such other matters as the court may order; (4) enforcing and administering the Settlement Agreement, including any releases executed in connection therewith, and the provisions of the Final Approval Order; (5) adjudicating any disputes that arise under the Settlement Agreement; and (6) any other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing. The Final Approval Order disposes of ECF Nos. 269, 270, and 274 in the San Francisco Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhtbpz9s from Leagle.com. SHANDA GAMES: Only Zang Remains as Defendant in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE SHANDA GAMES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-CV-02463 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issues an order for stay and entry of Final Judgment. The only remaining claims in the litigation are Counts II and III against Individual Defendant Yingfeng Zhang. On June 1, 2018, the Court appointed David Monk as the Lead Plaintiff and his counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, as the Lead Counsel. On Aug. 13, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws asserting claims on behalf of a class of former stockholders and former owners of American Depository Shares ("ADS") against Shanda and Individual Defendants Yingfeng Zhang, Li Yao, Lijun Lin, Heng Wing Chan, Yong Gui, Shaolin Liang, and Danian Chen, alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On Sept. 30, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Shanda and the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration to amend the complaint and cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's Sept. 30, 2019 Order. On Oct. 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the "SAC") against Defendants Shanda, Capitalcorp Limited, and Capitalhold Limited (collectively, the "Capital Defendants") and the Individual Defendants, alleging violations of the Exchange Act. On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an Order (the "Order") dismissing Counts I and IV of the SAC as to all the Defendants and dismissing Counts II and III as to all the Defendants except Zhang. The only remaining claims are Counts II and III against Zhang. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Dismissed Claims as to Defendants Shanda, Capitalcorp Limited, Capitalhold Limited, Li Yao, Lijun Lin, Heng Wing Chan, Yong Gui, Shaolin Liang, and Danian Chen. The judgment of the Dismissed Claims against the Dismissed Defendants is final pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), there being no just reason for delay. All substantive proceedings in this Action before the Court are stayed until the resolution of any appeal of the final judgments set forth. Any Party may move the Court to lift this stay if doing so is in the interest of justice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hdjx76d from Leagle.com. SHEMIA FAGAN: Thielman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed Shemia Fagan, et al. The case is styled as Marc Thielman, Ben Edtl, Don Powers, Sandra Nelson, Chuck Wiese, Loretta Johnson, Terry Noonkester, Steve Corderio, Jeanine Wenning, Diane Rich, Pam Lewis, Senator Dennis Linthicum, Janice Dysinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shemia Fagan, in her official capacity as Oregon Secretary of State; Clackamas County; Washington County; Multnomah County; Lane County; Linn County; Marion County; Jackson County; Deschutes County; Yamhill County; Douglas County; Klamath County; Coos County; Case No. 2:22-cv-04006-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Oct. 7, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Shemia Patricia Fagan -- https://sos.oregon.gov/Pages/meet-the-secretary.aspx -- is an American lawyer and politician serving as the Oregon secretary of state.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen J. Joncus, Esq. JONCUS LAW P.C. 13203 SE 172nd Ave Ste 166 #344 Happy Valley, OR 97086 Phone: (971) 236-1200 Email: steve@joncus.net The Defendants are represented by: Brian Simmonds Marshall, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (971) 673-1880 Email: brian.s.marshall@doj.state.or.us - and - Stephen Lewis Madkour, Esq. 2051 Kaen Rd Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 742-5395 Email: smadkour@clackamas.us - and - John Mansfield, Esq. OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N First Avenue, Ste. 340, MS 24 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: (503) 846-8746 Email: john_mansfield@washingtoncountyor.gov - and - Andrew Jones, Esq. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 Phone: (503) 988-3138 Fax: (503) 988-3377 Email: andy.jones@multco.us - and - Stephen Edward Dingle, Esq. Sebastian Tapia, Esq. 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 682-6561 Fax: (541) 682-3803 Email: stephen.dingle@lanecountyor.gov sebastian.tapia@lanecountyor.gov - and - Eugene J. Karandy, II, Esq. PO Box 100 104 4th Ave SW, Rm 123 Albany, OR 97321 Phone: (541) 967-3840 Email: gkarandy@co.linn.or.us - and - Keegan Caldwell Murphy, Esq. 555 Court St. N.E., Suite 5242 Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (971) 375-8300 Email: kemurphy@co.marion.or.us - and - Brett A. Baumann, Esq. 10 South Oakdale, Room 214 Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (541) 774-6162 Email: baumanBA@jacksoncounty.org - and - David Doyle, Esq. 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend, OR 97701 Phone: (541) 388-6625 Fax: (541) 617-4748 Email: david.doyle@deschutes.org - and - Christian F. Boenisch, Esq. McMinnville, OR 97128 Yamhill County, Office of County Counsel 434 NE Evans Phone: (503) 434-7502 Email: boenischc@co.yamhill.or.us - and - Paul E. Meyer, Esq. Douglas County Courthouse 1036 SE Douglas Avenue, Room 321 Roseburg, OR 97470 Phone: (541) 440-4375 Fax: (541) 440-6021 Email: pemeyer@co.douglas.or.us - and - Marcus M Henderson, Esq. Klamath County 305 Main Street Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Phone: (541) 851-3698 Fax: (541) 883-4270 Email: mhenderson@klamathcounty.org - and - Audrey Boyer, Esq. CAROLLO LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 2456 630 SE Jackson Street, Suite 1 Roseburg, OR 97470 Phone: (541) 957-5900 Fax: (541) 957-5923 Email: aboyer@carollolegal.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Case No. 2022-005039-CI was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Nov. 26, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02701. The Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks relief from the Defendant for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express written consent" of the Plaintiff and the putative class members, in purported violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Yaniv Adar, Esq. Josh A. Migdal, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: yaniv@markmigdal.com josh@markmigdal.com eservice@markmigdal.com SMCL HOLDINGS: Cannon Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, JIM CANNON, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. SMCL HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV36875 (Cal. Sup., November 22, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking for civil penalties against the Defendant pursuant to the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from approximately October 2018 until his termination on or about April 3, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that due to the Defendants' illegal wage and hour practices or policies, he and other similarly situated aggrieved employees were not paid wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage. The Defendants unlawful practices include "rounding down" or "shaving down" their punches to the nearest quarter of an hour, and requiring them to remain on-duty during their off-the-clock meal breaks. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid proper 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 Defendants failed to pay their earned wages on a timely basis. Instead, they were paid on a bi-weekly basis. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them with complete and accurate wage statements, and failed to pay them all wages due at time of termination/resignation, says the Plaintiff. SMCL Holdings, Inc. is a California Stock Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Danielle E. Montero, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com dmontero@lelawfirm.com wht2@lelawfirm.com STATE FARM: Gebka Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Gebka, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05546 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2022), is brought to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, the Defendant via third-parties acting on its behalf made telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number for the purposes of advertising the Defendant's goods and services without express consent which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of proposed nationwide classes of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Hendersonville, Tennessee. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation doing business in Illinois with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: keith@keoghlaw.com tkuyper@keoghlaw.com SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant submits an ex Parte application to suspend the deadlines associated with Tinnin's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant is concurrently filing a Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Stay Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Relief Requested Defendant requests that the Court first consider and resolve Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or, in the Alternative, Strike Claims in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and concurrently filed Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Stay Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, before setting further deadlines on the opposition, reply, and hearing dates associated with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant requests that the Court take off calendar the December 23, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Certification until the resolution of Defendant's two pending motions. In the alternative, Defendant requests, at a minimum, that the Court suspend the class certification deadlines at least until after Defendant's Motion to Strike is heard and decided. Specifically, the Defendant requests that the Court resolve Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Stay Claims in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion before any further dates are set on Plaintiff's Motion. In the alternative, Defendant requests, at a minimum, that the Court suspend the class certification deadlines at least until after Defendant's Motion to Strike is heard and decided. Sutter offers urgent care, physical therapy, radiology, health tips, research and clinical trials, ebola update, as well as hospital management services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3u98hWOat 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 TESLA INC: Seeks to Compel Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-05240-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants asks the Court to: 1. compel enforcement of the parties' arbitration agreement and stay the claims of Plaintiffs Brenda T. Broussard, Dominick Battiato, Christopher Mallow, and Jazmin Imaguchi pending arbitration; and 2. dismiss the Consolidated Complaint as to Plaintiff Thomas LoSavio (and the other Plaintiffs should the Court deny the arbitration motion). Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EOnwtj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David C. Marcus, Esq. Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 443-5312 E-mail: david.marcus@wilmerhale.com alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com allison.que@wilmerhale.com THRASIO LLC: Batista Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN BATISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRASIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 725186/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., November 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, angryorange.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the screen reader fails to indicate whether a desired product has been added to the shopping cart or not; (b) the screen reader fails to properly read and/or describe the available links; (c) the screen reader fails to read titles of webpages; (d) the screen reader begins reading all of the information immediately when a webpage loads; and (e) the screen reader fails to read the available customer reviews, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Thrasio, LLC is an online retail company that sells pet odor eliminator and pet stain removal products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com TIAA BANK: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS DeSIMONE, PATRICK GARDNER, MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, PAUL MALSTROM, STEPHEN GALLAGHER, CRAIG PALADEAU, CORY BENNER, and all others similarly situated,v. TIAA BANK, FSB, f/k/a Everbank Financial Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-06492-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release between Nicholas DeSimone, Patrick Gardner, Mohammad Hussain, Paul Malstrom, Stephen Gallagher, Craig Paladeau, and Cory Benner and TIAA Bank, N.A.; 2. Conditionally certifying the proposed seven Rule 23 state law classes for settlement purposes; 3. Appointing Justin Swidler of Swartz Swidler, LLC, Robert D. Soloff of Robert D. Soloff, P.A., Marc A. Silverman of Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L., and Carly Meredith of Meredith Malatino Law, LLC. as Class Counsel; 4. Appointing Angeion Group as Claims Administrator; 5. Preliminarily Approving Plaintiffs’ requests for attorneys’ fees, costs and service awards; 6. Approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement to Swidler Declaration, and Notice of Collective Action Settlement to Swidler Declaration; 7. Setting the date for the fairness hearing and the submission of the Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and 8. Specifying the dates for certain actions in this case. TIAA Bank is an American diversified financial services organization under the auspices of New York-based TIAA. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VLqC86 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Robert D. Soloff, Esq. ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A. 7805 SW 6th Court Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 472-0002 Facsimile: (954) 472-0052 E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com - and - Marc A. Silverman, Esq. FRANK, WEINBERG & BLACK, P.L. 7805 SW 6th Court Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 474-8000 Facsimile: (954) 474-9850 E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net - and - Carly Jane Skarbnik, Esq. 411 Hackensack Ave., Ste. 407 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 518-1914 E-mail: cmeredith@meredithmatalinolaw.com TIKTOK INC: Recht Sues Over Interception of Private Data -------------------------------------------------------- Austin Recht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TikTok Inc. (f/k/a Musical.ly, Inc.); ByteDance Inc.; Beijing Douyin Information Service Co. Ltd. a/k/a ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd.; and Douyin Ltd. a/k/a ByteDance Ltd., Case No. 2:22-cv-08613 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2022), is brought on behalf of all persons who downloaded TikTok, a social media application (the "TikTok app") 1, and used TikTok's in-app website browser ("in-app browser") with regards to the Defendants' unlawful intrusion upon users' privacy by intercepting private and personally identifiable data and content from TikTok users. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants invaded the privacy of Plaintiff and Class Members by secretly intercepting details and contents about the Plaintiff and Class Members without their consent. At no time did the Defendants disclose to Plaintiff and Class Members that TikTok users who access external websites via the TikTok app use an in-app browser which is a sophisticated data collection mechanism. The in-app browser inserts JavaScript code into the websites visited by TikTok users. The clear purpose of the JavaScript code inserted into these websites is to track every detail about TikTok users' website activity. Through the use of its in-app browser, TikTok has secretly amassed massive amounts of highly invasive information and data about its users by tracking their activities on third-party websites. Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private and personally identifiable data and content from TikTok users so that Defendants may generate revenue from use of this data. Through their clandestine tracking activities, Defendants have violated wiretap laws, unlawfully intruded upon users' privacy, violated their rights of privacy, and unjustly profited from their unlawful activities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff downloaded the TikTok app and created his TikTok account in 2019 on his mobile device, an Apple iPhone. TikTok Inc. f/k/a Musical.ly, Inc. is a California corporation doing business throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roland Tellis, Esq. Sterling Cluff, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Shannon Royster, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 818.839.2333 Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com scluff@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com sroyster@baronbudd.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: 602.708.1450 Email: don@donbivens.com TOULA MANUFACTURING: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toula Manufacturing Ltd, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Toula Manufacturing Ltd, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10072 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Toula Manufacturing Ltd., Inc. designs and sells knitted garments for women. The Company markets its products through fashion boutiques and retailers, as well as renders its products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID COLEMAN, and CARL McROBERTS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., OLATHE NOBLE EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC., and JACOBSON HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file reply memoranda in further support of their Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and their Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Currently, those reply memoranda are due December 5, 2022. The Plaintiffs seek to extend that deadline to January 6, 2023. This is a putative collective and class action brought by long-haul truck drivers who allege that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the minimum wage provisions of the Florida Constitution, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OO2TSs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Faces Tower Class Suit Over Air Ticket Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------------ JON TOWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGUESES, S.A. d/b/a TAP AIR PORTUGAL, Case No. 2:22-cv-06746-MCA-ESK (D.N.J., Nov. 23, 2022) is a breach of contract case brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased tickets for travel on a TAP flight scheduled to operate from March 1, 2020 through the date of a class certification order, whose flights were cancelled by TAP, and who were not provided a refund. On January 21, 2020, Mr. Tower bought a roundtrip ticket for travel from Boston, Massachusetts to Lisbon, Portugal. Mr. Tower spent $2,475.94 on the Ticket and it was scheduled to depart out of Boston on September 18, 2020, with a return on October 3 the same year. Over several months, Mr. Tower sought the return of his refund from TAP. As of the date of this Complaint, over two years after TAP cancelled the flight, it has still not refunded Mr. Tower, the suit claims. TAP first announced the cancellation of around 1,000 flights due to the "strong slowdown in demand" on March 5, 2020. Four days later, TAP announced the cancellation of another 3,500 flights during the months of March through May 2020. About two weeks after that, TAP announced it was grounding "a large part of its fleet." Despite the massive cancellations that TAP made to protect its business interests, many passengers, including Tower, still have not received refunds for flights that were cancelled, the suit adds. TAP is an international air carrier based in Portugal that offers flights to and from the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Ray D. Sulentic, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Discovery Plan & Sched Order Entered in Rand ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RAND, Individually and On Behalf Of A Class Similarly Situated, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 7:21-cv-10744-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered a civil case discovery pan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be August 30, 2023 completed by: -- Initial request for production January 6, 2023 of documents shall be served by: -- Interrogatories shall be served January 6, 2023 by: -- Non-expert depositions shall be July 30, 2023 completed: -- All expert discovery, including Dec. 32, 2023 expert depositions, in support of class certificatio shall be completed by: -- Plaintiff'expert disclosure in Sept. 30, 2023 support of class certification shall be completed by:L -- Deposition of expert for class Dec. 31, 2023 certification shall be completed by: -- Plaintiffs' motion for Class Jan. 31, 2024 Certification shall be filed by: -- Defendant's Response to April 17, 2024 the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed: Travelers Indemnity operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vjytdi at no extra charge.[CC] TRIUMPH PHARMACEUTICALS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Pena Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- WALESKA PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIUMPH PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 725173/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., November 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, smartmouth.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the screen reader fails to indicate whether a desired product has been added to the shopping cart or not; (b) the screen reader fails to properly read the links available on the website; (c) the screen reader fails to identify available controls; (d) the screen reader fails to properly read the names of products; and (e) the screen reader fails to properly describe available images on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc. is an online retail company that sells mouthwashes, oral rinses, and other fresh breath products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com TWITTER INC: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration in WARN Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that Twitter, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration to the Northern District of California in an employment lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees. As reported by Law Street Media, the litigation was initiated on November 3 when former Twitter employees filed a class action complaint claiming Twitter violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act) and the California WARN Act. Under the acts, the complaint says, large employers such as Twitter are required to give workers "formal written advance notice" of anticipated and qualifying layoffs 60 days prior. Through their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Twitter is a qualifying company under the WARN Acts and failed to provide the required notice to terminated employees. Further, the five named plaintiffs from California, Hawaii and Massachusetts state they were locked out of their Twitter on November 3, signifying their termination without prior notice. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief requiring Twitter to comply with the law and provide notice or severance payment in connection with the anticipated layoffs. Additionally, the complaint asks the court to issue an injunction prohibiting Twitter from asking its employees to waive federal and California WARN Act claims without apprising them of the putative class action. Twitter responded with the motion to compel arbitration, asking the court to dismiss the suit and require the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. The motion states that each of Twitter's employees, including the plaintiffs, agreed to a dispute resolution agreement as part of their employment that includes an arbitration agreement and class action waiver. The plaintiffs' complaint mentions a similar WARN Act class action filed against Tesla Inc. this past summer. That case was also met with an arbitration challenge and the claims were ultimately sent to individual arbitration on November 2. As the plaintiffs' complaint presently stands, there is no mention of Twitter employees' contracts or the arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs and putative class are represented by Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. while Twitter is represented by Morgan Lewis. [GN] UHL VENTURES: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Bonura ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY BONURA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. UHL VENTURES LLC d/b/a SERVPRO OF JAMESTOWN/OLEAN and WILLIAM UHL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00395-JLS-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy entered an Amended case management order as follows: 1. All motions or stipulations to December 30, 2022 join other parties and to amend or supplement the pleadings shall be filed by no later than: 2. All class and collective December 30, 2022 action certification discovery shall be completed by no later than: 3. All expert depositions shall March 31, 2023 be completed by no later than: 4. Motions for class and collective May 1, 2023 action certification shall be filed by no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XFdR0R at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnolia State Live reports that a class action lawsuit claims that the Mississippi furniture company that laid off thousands of employees before Thanksgiving violated federal law when it ended their employment without giving adequate notice. Lawyers for Toria Neal filed the suit in federal court in the Northern District of Mississippi, where United Furniture Industries is headquartered. According to court documents, Neal worked for United in Mississippi since 2019 until getting notification on Nov. 21 that the company was terminating all employees immediately. The lawsuit claims that United Furniture failed to give the 60-day notice of termination required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act for companies that employ more than 100 people. On Monday, Nov. 21, United Furniture notified all of its employees my email and text messages that it was terminating it entire workforce, with the exception of over-the-road drivers. United Furniture, in its messages, said that the terminations were expected to be permanent, and without a provision under the law that allows employees to continue health insurance coverage after leaving a job. The company blamed unforeseen business circumstances for the terminations. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, employers who violate the 60-day provision may be liable to each employee for back pay and benefits up to the 60 days. [GN] UNITED FURNITURE: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE POE, on Behalf of Himself and all Other Similarly Situated Persons v. UNITED FURNTURE INDUSTRIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00172-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff filed this case as a class action on behalf of all employees who were terminated (or soon will be terminated) as a result of the Defendant, United Furniture Industries, Inc., closing all of its Mississippi locations, including but not limited to Amory, Wren, Okolona, Nettleton, Verona, and Tupelo, without notice on or about November 21, 2022. The Defendant failed to give the 60 days' notice of a plant closing as required by the Worker Adjustment Relocation Notification Act commonly known as the WARN Act. The class is defined as: "all persons who were employed by Defendant as of November 21, 2022, and who lost their jobs on that day or who will soon lose their jobs after the liquidation process has been completed." United Furniture manufactures and sells upholstery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov.. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VhdyHN http://bit.ly/3VhdyHNat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip C. Hearn, Esq. Charles C. Cole, Esq. HEARN LAW FIRM, PLLC Post Office Box 5009 Jackson, MS 39296 Telephone: (662) 766-7777 Facsimile: (662) 524-3530 E-mail: philiphearn@yahoo.com cass.hearnlaw@gmail.com - and - Mike Farrell, Esq. MIKE FARRELL, PLLC 210 E. Capitol Street Regions Plaza, Suite 2180 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8030 Facsimile: (601) 948-8032 E-mail: mike@farrell-law.net URS MIDWEST: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Dec. 16 in Rodriguez ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to continue the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. -- The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is continued to December 16, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8Owql at no extra charge.[CC] US AIR FORCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Doster Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HUNTER DOSTER; JASON ANDERSON; McKENNA COLANTANIO; PAUL CLEMENT; JOE DILLS; BENJAMIN LEIBY; BRETT MARTIN; CONNOR McCORMICK; HEIDI MOSHER; PETER NORRIS; PATRICK POTTINGER; ALEX RAMSPERGER; BENJAMIN RINALDI; DOUGLAS RUYLE; CHRISTOPHER SCHULDES; EDWARD STAPANON, III; ADAM THERIAULT; DANIEL REINEKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HON. FRANK KENDALL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; LT. GENERAL ROBERT I. MILLER, in his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force; LT. GENERAL MARSHALL B. WEBB, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Education and Training Command; LT. GENERAL RICHARD W. SCOBEE, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Force Reserve Command; LT. GENERAL JAMES C. SLIFE, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 22-3497/3702 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court order: a. granting the Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction on the ground that the Air Force's blanket denial of religious exemptions likely violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause; and b. certifying a class of members of the Air Force. The Department of the Air Force has ordered all of its over 500,000 service members to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests and only to those already planning to leave the service. Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement). In February 2022, the 18 Plaintiffs, some on active duty and others in the reserves, sued Secretary Kendall, Surgeon General Miller, and the commanders of three Major Commands. The Plaintiffs allege that the vaccine mandate substantially burdens their religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment and the RFRA. Asserting RFRA and First Amendment claims, they alleged that the exemption process is a sham because the Air Force followed a discriminatory policy that denied nearly all religious exemptions but broadly granted medical and administrative exemptions. Finding that these claims would likely succeed, the district court granted a preliminary injunction that barred the Air Force from disciplining the Plaintiffs for failing to take a vaccine. But its injunction did not interfere with the Air Force's operational decisions over the Plaintiffs' duties. The court then certified a class of thousands of similar service members and extended this injunction to the class. It defined the class to include those whom a military chaplain has found to have sincerely held religious beliefs that are substantially burdened by the vaccine mandate. The Air Force appeals the individual and class injunctions. The Sixth Circuit opines that the Air Force's briefs across the two appeals work at cross-purposes. In its challenge to the class-action certification, the Air Force correctly states that RFRA adopts an individual-by-individual approach: the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in requiring a "specific" service member to get vaccinated based on that person's specific duties and working conditions, citing Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 431 (2006). In its challenge to the Plaintiffs' injunction, however, the Sixth Circuit opines that the Air Force fails to identify the specific duties or working conditions of a single Plaintiff. It instead seeks to satisfy RFRA with the "general interests" underlying its vaccine mandate. The Sixth Circuit thus asked to deny that common questions exist for purposes of certifying a class but to accept that common answers exist for purposes of rejecting all 18 Plaintiffs' claims on their merits. The Sixth Circuit declines this inconsistent invitation. It finds that under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its "broadly formulated" reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues. The Sixth Circuit thus may uphold the Plaintiffs' injunction based on RFRA alone. The Air Force's treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member's individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a "yes" or "no" fashion for the entire class. It can answer whether these alleged policies violate RFRA and the First Amendment in the same way. A ruling for the class also would permit uniform injunctive relief against the allegedly illegal policies. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/26hsdj4p from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Casen B. Ross, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for the Appellants. Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Crestview Hills, Kentucky, for the Appellees. ON BRIEF: Casen B. Ross, Charles W. Scarborough, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., Sarah J. Clark, Anna O. Mohan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for the Appellants. Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Crestview Hills, Kentucky, Aaron Siri, Elizabeth A. Brehm -- ebrehm@sirillp.com -- Wendy Cox -- wcox@sirillp.com -- SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, Thomas B. Bruns -- tbruns@bcvalaw.com -- BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Appellees. Matthew F. Kuhn, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, Frederick R. Yarger -- yarger@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, Denver, Colorado, Ilya Shapiro, New York, New York, Gene C. Schaerr -- gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com -- Kenneth A. Klukowski -- gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com -- SCHAERR JAFFE LLP, Washington, D.C., John Eidsmoe, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Montgomery, Alabama, for Amici Curiae. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Enno Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VBIT Technologies Corp., et al. The case is styled as Michael Enno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VBIT Technologies Corp., VBIT Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group, Danh Cong Vo also known as: Don Vo, Katie Vo, Sean Tu, Jin Gao, Lillian Zhao, John Does 1-10, ABC Companies 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-04006-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Oct. 7, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. VBit Technologies -- https://vbittech.com/ -- sells bitcoin mining hardware and offers mining equipment hosting. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J Grunfeld, Esq. Kevin William Fay, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@GolombLegal.com kfay@golomblegal.com VESTAS-AMERICAN: Molengraaf Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, ELIZABETH MOLENGRAAF, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. VESTAS-AMERICAN WIND TECHNOLOGY INC., a foreign corporation and BHI ENERGY I POWER SERVICES, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01825 (D. Ore., November 22, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid Field Support Coordinator from May 2021 to December 2021. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Support Coordinators were classified by the Defendant as non-exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA, the Defendants refused to pay them for more than 10 hours of work per day, and refused to pay them for work performed on Sundays. In addition, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 each week, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking for damages owed to her and others similarly situated Field Support Coordinators, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fee, costs, and pre-judgment interest, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Vestas-American Wind Technology Inc. manufactures, installs and services wind turbines. BHI Energy I Power Services, LLC provides project management and staffing services to energy markets. [BN} The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron W. Baker, Esq. Serena L. Liss, Esq. BAKER LAW PC One SW Columbia St., Suite 1850 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 234-8800 Fax: (503) 525-0650 E-mail: aaron@awbakerlaw.com serena@awbakerlaw.com - and - Colby Qualls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com VF OUTDOOR: Bids to Certify Class & Strike in Valencia Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-1795-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Ana de Alba of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: a. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Strike; and b. denies as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike. On Aug. 27, 2019, Valencia filed the putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Compensation Law; and (8) penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. On Oct. 28, 2019, the Defendant removed the action to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. It then filed a motion to transfer the action to this Court, which was granted on Dec. 17, 2020. On Nov. 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The Defendant filed its opposition on Jan. 31, 2022. On Feb. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her reply, along with a motion to strike five video files submitted in support of the Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. On Feb. 22, 2022, the Defendant filed its opposition, in addition to filing its own motion to strike the Plaintiff's reply in support of the Motion for Class Certification. The motions were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On Sept. 23, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Motion for Class Certification be denied, the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike be denied, and the Defendant's Motion to Strike be denied as moot. The assigned Magistrate Judge granted the parties 14 days from the date of service to file objections. The Plaintiff timely filed objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C), Judge de Alba has conducted a de novo review of the case, including the Plaintiff's objections. Having carefully reviewed the matter, she finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, she adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed Sept. 23, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ffdssxn from Leagle.com. YIELDSTREET INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 3, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TJOK, MICHAEL TECKU, and DAVID FINKELSTEIN; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YIELDSTREET INC.; YIELDSTREET MANAGEMENT LLC; YS ALTNOTES I LLC; YS ALTNOTES II LLC; AND MICHAEL WEISZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-07327-VM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order granting the schedule for the Motion for Class Certification, Opposition and Reply as follows: a. Motion for Class Certification: February 3, 2023 b. Opposition to Motion for March 6, 2023 Class Certification: c. Plaintiff's Reply: March 28, 2023 d. Hearing on Motion: To be determined by the Court Yieldstreet provides investments in art, real estate, legal, and various other industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VLCDKM at no extra charge.[CC] ZEETOGROUP LLC: Compelled to Reply to Subpoenas in Health IQ Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HI.Q, INC. D/B/A HEALTH IQ, Petitioner v. ZEETOGROUP, LLC, Respondent, Misc. Action No. 22cv1440-LL-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants Health IQ's motion to compel Zeeto's response to the subpoenas for document production and deposition testimony. The matter is a subpoena-related dispute concerning a putative class action pending in the Northern District of California. In Toby Hoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hi.Q, Inc. d/b/a Health IQ, 4:21cv4875-TLT (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff Hoy alleges that HI.Q, Inc. ("Health IQ") sent unlawful marketing texts and/or prerecorded telemarketing calls about its insurance products to Hoy and other consumers registered on the National Do Not Call list in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c). Whether Health IQ had Plaintiff Hoy's consent to telemarketing contact depends upon whether Health IQ was disclosed to Hoy (and other consumers) as Zeeto's affiliated partner at the time Hoy provided consent through Zeeto as a lead generator. As a lead generator, Zeeto facilitated a "survey path" whereby online consumers, like Hoy, would interact with that path while viewing certain advertisements. When consumers clicked on relevant advertisements, Zeeto's survey path would take those consumers through a series of questions, asking consumers to (1) provide their contact information, (2) give consent to Zeeto's standard disclosures, and (3) answer several other questions. Consumers' answers matched them with Zeeto's "affiliated partners," or advertisers, such as a company named Policyscout (also known as "Cege" and "Enfuego"), who in turn sold leads to companies like Health IQ. Health IQ maintains it had consent to contact Hoy, which would be a complete defense to Hoy's claims. It IQ contends that Respondent Zeeto has records and testimony that could establish Hoy's consent to contact from Health IQ. Zeeto is a nonparty lead generation service with a principal place of business in San Diego, California. Health IQ served Zeeto with two subpoenas to help establish its affirmative defense of consent in the underlying case. The subpoenas sought information, documents, and testimony about consumers who (1) went through Zeeto's lead-generation path, (2) provided their consent to telemarketing contact, and (3) arguably saw (or should have seen) Health IQ listed as an affiliated partner for purposes of consent. Zeeto refused to comply with the subpoenas. On Sept. 23, 2022, Health IQ filed this action to compel Zeeto's subpoena responses. The Court issued a briefing schedule, and Zeeto filed its response on Oct. 25, 2022. Hoy also filed a response and Health IQ filed a reply on Nov. 1, 2022. Zeeto opposes the motion to compel, arguing the subpoenas were procedurally defective and raising numerous substantive objections. Health IQ cites Rules 37 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in support of its motion to compel, but it limits its reliance on Rule 37 to affirming its good faith attempts to confer with Zeeto and provide notice to all parties prior to filing. Under Rule 45, Health IQ asks the Court to modify, transfer and/or enforce the subpoena, but it does not specifically reference Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i)), which governs orders to compel a commanded person's compliance with a subpoena duces tecum, or Rule 45(g), which addresses a person's failure to obey a subpoena or order related to it without adequate excuse, as well as contempt orders for such failure. Judge Dembin construes Health IQ's motion as one filed under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) and (g) but first addresses why Health IQ's motion is properly filed in this district. He says the motion is properly filed here, where compliance with the subpoenas will actually occur. To the extent that Health IQ also cites Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in its motion to compel, that rule similarly provides that "a motion for an order to a nonparty must be made in the court where the discovery is or will be taken." While it is less clear whether Rule 37 may be used to compel a nonparty's presence at a deposition, Judge Dembin concludes the better course is to proceed with the motion to compel deposition testimony under Rule 45 as well. He first addresses and resolves Health IQ's motion to compel compliance with its subpoena duces tecum, and then its subpoena for deposition testimony. Judge Dembin orders Zeeto to comply with Health IQ's subpoena for the production of documents. He finds that for months, Health IQ endeavored to understand, narrow, and confer with Zeeto about its objections, even when Zeeto failed to properly serve its objections to Health IQ. Zeeto did not articulate any specific grounds for objecting until Health IQ filed its motion to compel. Even upon consideration of those articulated grounds, Judge Dembin is not persuaded that Zeeto's objections have merit. The Court has already explained to the parties the relevance of information and documentation that Health IQ now seeks; it did so even before Cardwell reversed his position about the disclosure of Health IQ as Zeeto's affiliated partner. Judge Dembin holds that Health IQ is entitled to better understand the documents and information that led to Zeeto's withdrawal of its first declaration, and the subsequent conclusions that Zeeto reached about consumers' consent to contact from Health IQ. He finds Health IQ's subpoena requests relevant and proportional to the underlying case. Moreover, Zeeto's harassing, vague, ambiguous, and non-specific objections amount to nothing more than generalized labels. They are not tailored to specific requests and are repeatedly copied verbatim. As such, they are boilerplate objections, tantamount to no objections at all. Because Zeeto provides no specific attorney-client privilege argument within its objections or in the briefing, Zeeto fails to establish that attorney-client privilege applies. Likewise, Zeeto's argument that trade secrets would be disclosed through a compelled production is not sufficiently supported. For these reasons, Judge Dembin overrules Zeeto's objections to the subpoena duces tecum and orders Zeeto to comply to all Health IQ's document requests within 21 days. If Zeeto fails to comply with the Court's order, Health IQ is directed to inform the Court so that a show cause hearing or order may be filed pursuant to Rule 45(g). Judge Dembin then holds that Zeeto will comply with Health IQ's subpoena for deposition testimony. He agrees with Health IQ and orders Zeeto's compliance with the subpoena for deposition testimony to occur in this district, where the deponent is located. Zeeto will make Cardwell, or an appropriate designated witness, available for deposition within 30 days of producing the documents ordered. Unless the parties agree to conduct a remote deposition, the deposition will occur in this district, within 100 miles of where Cardwell resides or regularly conducts business for Zeeto. In light of the foregoing, Judge Dembin grants Health IQ's motion to compel Zeeto's response to the subpoenas for document production and deposition testimony. Zeeto will produce the subpoenaed materials within 21 days of the Order, and the parties will set a deposition to occur within 30 days of such production. If the parties cannot agree upon electronic production of documents or a remote video deposition, then compliance will occur where Zeeto's documents are located and where its deponent resides, in this district pursuant to Rule 45. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vtf74ta from Leagle.com. ZUFFA LLC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (Nev. Dist.), the parties stipulate to a 90-day extension of the current class certification briefing schedule, as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiff's April 4, 2023 Motion for Class Certification and Disclosure of Expert(s) and Export Report(s) Relating to Class Certification will be due by: -- Expert(s) and Expert Report(s) June 2, 2023 Relating to Class Certification -- Plaintiff's Reply Brief in August 1, 2023 Support of Motion for Class Certification and Rebuttal Expert Report(s) in Support of Class Certification will be due by: The Court's May 25, 2022 Case Management Order set a deadline of January 4, 2023, for Plaintiff's motion for class certification and disclosure of experts and expert reports relating to class certification, as well as attendant opposition and reply deadlines. The Plaintiff believes additional time is necessary to review those documents, obtain follow-up searches, and conduct informed depositions prior to the current January 4, 2022 motion for class certification deadline. The parties have met and conferred and agree that the case schedule should be extended by 90 days to allow additional time for discovery. Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ugqyBw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Markman, Esq. MARKMAN LAW 4484 S. Pecos Rd. Suite #130 Las Vegas NV 89121 Telephone: (702) 843-5899 Facsimile: (702) 843-6010 E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com - and - Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. Mccrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Kali Backer, 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 marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Colby Williams, Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 710 South Seventh Street, Suite A Las Vegas, NE 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222 Facsimile: (702) 382-0540 E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com - and - Victor Jih, Esq. Susan K. Leader, Esq. Ali Rabbani, Esq. Stephanie V. Balitzer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027 Telephone: (323) 210-2900 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com sleader@wsgr.com arabbani@wsgr.com sbalitzer@wsgr.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***