/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 9, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 240 Headlines ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Seeks Dismissal of Cheng's Third Amended Suit AMERICAS GOLD: Ontario Court Denies Leave and Certification Motions ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Fillipo Wage & Hour Suit APACHE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Plymouth Class Suit Denied APPLE INC: Court Needs Advice on Bid for Dismissal in Vivar Suit BHP GROUP: Wants Vale SA to Share Liability in UK Class Action BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective 3G Telematics Systems BOEING CO: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action BOEING COMPANY: 5th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Earl Suit BOSLEY INC: Court Issues Final Approval Order in Hashemi Class Suit BURLINGTON NORTHERN: BNSF to Appeal $228M Judgment in BIPA Suit CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Biele Says CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys Fees' Judgment in Franco Suit CITIBANK NA: Class Settlement in FrontPoint Suit Has Final Approval CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With HSBC Wins Final Approval CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With ING Gets Final Approval CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With JPMorgan Has Final Nod CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Deal With Deutsche Bank Gets Final Nod DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Suit Removed to C.D. California DIRECTV LLC: December 19 Settlement Claim Filing Deadline Set EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Faces Class Suit Over Personal Info Exposure EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bradberry Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia FIBROGEN INC: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Filing of Instanter Reply in Securities Suit OK'd FIS MANAGEMENT: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FREESTYLE SOLUTIONS: Fritz Files Suit in D. New Jersey FRESH VENTURES: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wage Lawsuit FRESNO PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges GENERAC HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30 GERON CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement on March 30 GOOGLE LLC: Judge Grants Class Action Status in Antitrust Suit GORILLAS TECHNOLOGIES: Vasquez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Lipke Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARLEM 421 FOOD: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wage HEALTHCARE INC: Doyle Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey HOME DEPOT USA: Clark-Alonso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. I.C. SYSTEM INC: Fried Sues Over Incorrect and Deceptive Statements IMPERIAL BAG: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Question Certified to N.M. Supreme Court INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Pending in Jansen INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: First Mediation in Oman Suit Held in Sept. IPIC THEATERS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York J.K. & SONS COFFEE: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Dabbah Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey JO-ANN STORES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Rath Class Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Yang Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Law Firm Proposes $99.5M Share From Settlement KROGER COMPANY: Cameron Sues Over Mislabeled Beverage Products LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ill. LEONARDO FURNITURE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LILITH GAMES: Class Action Suit Over Loot Boxes Dismissed LYONS MAGNUS: Jennings Sues Over Failure to Ensure Products Safety MANYMOONS CO: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARLEY LILLY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Files Suit in D. Ohio MIDCOUNTRY BANK: Bickel Sues Over Improper Charging of Bank Fees MIKE BLOOMBERG: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoena in Fontaine Suit MONSANTO CO: City of Baltimore to Receive Portion of PCB Settlement MOVADO GROUP: Cody Sues Over Unlawfully Wiretapped Conversations NEW YORK, NY: Hall Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations NEXA MORTGAGE: Diaz Suit Removed to S.D. California NOT YOUR MOTHER'S: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Dry Shampoo NY FRESH MEX: Balk Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PERRIGO COMPANY: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wells Says RB & DC SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges REVELETTE ENT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Vickers Alleges REX VENTURE: Nationwide Named as Plaintiff in Bell v. Matthias REX VENTURE: Nationwide Named as Plaintiff in Orso v. J.P Louis REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Bell v. Reid REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Britus REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Louis REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Pepovic REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Porter SEPHORA USA: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products SILK 222 INC: Zabrodin Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls SONDER HOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Investors' Claims ST. PAUL FIRE: PCC, ACE Fire and Century Settlement Wins Approval TAI RITTICHAI: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TARGET CORPORATION: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages TARGET CORPORATION: Lomely Suit Removed to E.D. California TGI FRIDAY'S: Judge Tentatively Allows Mislabeling Suit to Proceed THINK VACUUMS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Scales Files Suit in N.D. California TORRID HOLDINGS: Timothy L. Miles Law Announces Class Action TRANS UNION LLC: Bryant Files Class Action Over FCRA Violations TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9 TWITTER INC: Court Issues Final Judgment in Securities Litigation ULTA SALON: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls UNITED FURNITURE: Alcantara Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice UNITED STATES: Ireland Appeals CARES Suit Dismissal to Fed. Cir. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Vigdor Suit Remanded to State Court UVALDE, TX: Mass Shooting Survivors File $27-Bil. Class Action VAN CLEEF & ARPELS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York VICTORIA: COVID-19 Lockdown Class Action Suit May Face Delay WALT DISNEY: YouTube TV Subscribers Sue Over Anticompetitive Scheme WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ictech-Bendeck Has Established General Causation WILLIAM MARKETING: Mboh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois WTA TOUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Young Class Suit Alleges ZYNGA INC: Ferrando May File Oversized Bid for Settlement Approval [*] Number of Securities Class Actions in Australia Up in 2022 [*] UK Class Action Over COVID, Strikes May Extend to Law Schools [*] Zantac Manufacturers Avert Cancer Class Action Lawsuit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 211 PI Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ********* ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Seeks Dismissal of Cheng's Third Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Activision Blizzard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the Company has moved to dismiss a third amended complaint filed by Gary Cheng captioned Gary Cheng v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06240-PA-JEM. On August 3, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Gary Cheng v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06240-PA-JEM. Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against the Company and five current or former officers. An amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2021, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's shareholders who purchased stock between February 28, 2017 and November 16, 2021. In an order dated April 18, 2022, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 18, 2022, on behalf of shareholders who purchased stock between November 8, 2018 and November 16, 2021, which defendants moved to dismiss on June 16, 2022. In an order dated August 30, 2022, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 29, 2022. Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was filed October 31, 2022. Activision Blizzard, Inc. is an American video game holding company based in Santa Monica, California. It was founded in July 2008 through the merger of Activision, Inc. and Vivendi Games. AMERICAS GOLD: Ontario Court Denies Leave and Certification Motions ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Gelowitz, Esq., Robert Carson, Esq., and Elie Farkas, Esq., of Osler, disclosed that on November 22, 2022, in MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a plaintiff's "double motion" for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act (the OSA) and certification of a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act (the CPA). Justice Morgan dismissed each motion on the basis that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the applicable evidentiary threshold. Justice Morgan's decision reaffirms that the leave and certification tests are meaningful screening mechanisms. It also provides useful guidance regarding the disclosure expectations for issuers, particularly those in the mining industry. Background Americas Gold and Silver Corp. (Americas) is a mining company whose shares trade on the TSX and NYSE. In April 2019, Americas acquired Relief Canyon, a gold mine in Nevada. In May 2021, Americas issued its quarterly disclosure, informing the market that it was testing a different extraction process at Relief Canyon and that the mine had been experiencing modelling, construction and operational issues. Americas took impairment and write-off charges totaling $78.6 million. The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action, alleging that the adverse news contained in the May 2021 disclosure revealed material facts that Americas knew and should have disclosed in prospectuses in August 2020 and January 2021. The plaintiff sought leave to pursue a secondary market misrepresentation claim under section 138.8 of the OSA and certification of various claims, including primary market misrepresentation under section 130 of the OSA and common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Dismissal of the leave motion The key issue on the leave motion was whether the plaintiff had adduced evidence to demonstrate a "reasonable possibility" that it would succeed at trial. Justice Morgan emphasized that a plaintiff must adduce "credible evidence" to support its claim. The evidence must show the actual misrepresentation rather than the consequences of an alleged misrepresentation; in other words, a plaintiff must do more than adduce evidence of a drop in share price and ask the Court to "reason backwards" to presume a prior misrepresentation. Justice Morgan explained that, because the plaintiff alleged that Americas failed to disclose material facts, the plaintiff was required to show that those facts were known when the prospectuses were issued - i.e., that those facts were not still "buried in the ground". It stands to reason that one does not commit a misrepresentation by omitting that which was not known. The inquiry does not ask whether there were unknown things buried in the ground that could make the mine less profitable than predicted. That kind of omission does not amount to an omission of a fact that existed at the time the prospectus was issued, and thus was not a fact that had to be disclosed.[1] Justice Morgan found that there was no "blatant, on its face" contradiction between Americas' May 2021 disclosures and its earlier prospectuses. The prospectuses described the mining site and surface geology, while the May 2021 disclosure described what was subsequently revealed underground. The plaintiff did not offer any expert evidence, or any other evidence, to support the plaintiff's interpretation of the respective disclosures. Based on his reading of the disclosures, Justice Morgan found that the prospectuses did "precisely what one would expect them to do in the circumstances" by disclosing that there were challenges at the mine that were being investigated. The subsequent May 2021 disclosure was a further technical update. For Justice Morgan, "[t]he entire disclosure sequence . . . followed a pattern that anyone would expect it to follow as the exploration of the mine site moved forward."[2] There was no credible evidence that the plaintiff had a reasonable possibility of succeeding on its secondary market misrepresentation claim. The motion for leave was therefore dismissed. Dismissal of the certification motion Justice Morgan also declined to certify any of the plaintiff's remaining causes of action, finding that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate "some basis in fact" for its asserted claims -- a precondition to satisfying the commonality criterion under clause 5(1)(c) of the CPA. Justice Morgan confirmed that, for an actionable misrepresentation by omission, the alleged material facts must have at least been "knowable" prior to the impugned omission. Facts that "do not yet exist or are, literally, underground" cannot form the basis of a viable misrepresentation claim.[3] On the record before him, Justice Morgan could find no basis in fact for the plaintiff's foundational claim: that the information contained in the May 2021 release was known or knowable at the time that Americas' prospectuses were issued. It followed that "if this cornerstone crumbles, the rest of the edifice likewise cannot stand as a class proceeding."[4] Key takeaways Justice Morgan's decision is a helpful reminder that both the leave and certification thresholds impose meaningful evidentiary burdens upon putative representative plaintiffs. These burdens will not be satisfied by a mere decline in an issuer's share price. The decision also provides useful guidance on the standard of disclosure expected of issuers, particularly those in the mining industry, and confirms the common sense proposition that an issuer is not expected to disclose "unknown things buried in the ground".[5] Osler represented Americas Gold and Silver Corp. in the action, with a team led by Mark Gelowitz, Robert Carson and Elie Farkas. [1] MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, para. 26. [2] MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, para. 32. [3] MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, para. 54(a). [4] MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, para. 55. [5] MM Fund v. Americas Gold and Silver Corp., 2022 ONSC 6515, para. 26. [GN] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Fillipo Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James R. Sweeney, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled LITA FILLIPO and TIMOTHY KRAFT, on behalf of themselves, nationwide FLSA collective plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00926-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind.). The lawsuit is a wage-and-hour dispute. The Plaintiffs were salespeople working for Anthem during the COVID pandemic. They were classified as "outside salespersons," who are exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs argue that they did not qualify as "outside salespersons" because they worked from home during the pandemic, and work done from a home office does not count as outside sales. They bring a putative collective action under the FLSA, and a putative class action under various state wage laws, seeking to recover overtime pay for themselves and others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs divide their amended complaint into two counts: "Count I" asserts the FLSA theory and "Count III" asserts the state-law theory. There is no "Count II." Anthem's motion to dismiss is directed at Count III only. Anthem argues Count III should be dismissed because: (1) the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue an action in states where they didn't work; (2) they fail to plausibly plead a prima facie case under the 22 state laws cited; and (3) their proposed class does not generate common legal or factual questions. Judge Sweeney finds that the Plaintiffs have standing: they allege that Anthem did not pay them overtime to which they were entitled; they seek the Court's judgment awarding them monetary damages. Anthem does not dispute the Plaintiffs' standing to bring the case. Instead, Anthem argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their state law theories. That argument fails, Judge Sweeney holds. Although as the Court and others have observed in the past, "cause of action" and "standing" as distinct concepts can be difficult to keep separate, ultimately the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief goes to the merits in the typical case, not the justiciability of a dispute, Judge Sweeney explains. Here, then, it does not matter for jurisdictional purposes whether the Plaintiffs can recover on their state law theories, Judge Sweeney points out. As Anthem admits, the Plaintiffs have a live FLSA claim; the rest can be extraneous or not; the Plaintiffs have a case. Anthem next argues that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead a prima facie case under the 22 state laws cited. As was perhaps foreshadowed by the Court's discussion of standing, this argument, too, fails, Judge Sweeney holds. First, Judge Sweeney opines, federal notice pleading rejects the old "theory of the pleadings" standard; the Plaintiffs need not plead a "prima facie case" to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Second, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only tests whether the complaint includes factual allegations that state a plausible claim for relief. So as long as the facts as alleged allow recovery on at least one legal theory, the claim survives, Judge Sweeney holds. The presence of extraneous legal theories does not matter. Here, the Plaintiffs' claim is that Anthem misclassified its salespeople as exempt "outside salespersons" and so failed to pay them overtime wages. Anthem, by directing its motion to dismiss at Count III only, implicitly admits that those facts amount to a plausible claim to relief under the FLSA, Judge Sweeney holds. The Court need not consider, on a 12(b)(6) motion, whether those facts also amount to a plausible claim under various state laws. Finally, Anthem argues that the Plaintiffs' proposed class does not generate common legal or factual questions. Judge Sweeney holds that those are arguments that go to the Rule 23 sufficiency of a proposed class--but no motion for Rule 23 class certification is before the Court. The parties are currently briefing a motion for FLSA conditional collective certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court will not consider Rule 23 arguments here. Accordingly, Judge Sweeney finds the Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case, notwithstanding their potential inability to recover under their state law theories. Similarly, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a plausible claim for relief under the FLSA, and the viability of alternate state law theories is no grounds for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Class certification arguments are not properly before the Court. The stay of discovery related to Count III is lifted. Should Anthem wish to stay class-based discovery pending a motion for class certification, it should file a separate motion, Judge Sweeney says. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wufsdsv from Leagle.com. APACHE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Plymouth Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs v. APACHE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00575 (S.D. Tex.), Judge George C. Hanks, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On Sept. 15, 2021, the case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation on Sept. 15, 2022, recommending that yjr Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint be denied. On Oct. 13, 2022, the Defendants filed their Objections. Judge Hanks has carefully considered the Objections; the Memorandum and Recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. He accepts Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation and adopts it in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s2xfnad4 from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Court Needs Advice on Bid for Dismissal in Vivar Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ALEJANDRO VIVAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0347 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks the parties' advice whether pre-motion letters be deemed to constitute a motion to dismiss. The Court has reviewed the pre-motion letters exchanged by the parties regarding the Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint and is not persuaded that a pre-motion conference is necessary at this time. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to advise whether they consent for the Court to deem the pre-motion letters to constitute a fully briefed motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint and rule on the basis of the limited briefs or whether the parties request supplemental or full briefing. If the parties request supplemental or full briefing, the Court directs them to submit a proposed briefing schedule within two weeks of the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/38e8v5sz from Leagle.com. BHP GROUP: Wants Vale SA to Share Liability in UK Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- James Fernyhough, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that BHP Group Ltd. requested that Brazilian miner Vale SA share liability should it lose a UK class action lawsuit over the deadly 2015 Fundao dam collapse in Brazil. The class action, involving around 200,000 people, could seek damages of as much as £5 billion ($6.1 billion) from BHP, but doesn't name Vale even though the dam was run by Samarco, a venture between the two companies. The Fundao Dam collapsed in 2015, releasing large amounts of mud and toxic mine waste, destroying villages, polluting rivers and killing 19 people. The disaster has been the subject of multiple lawsuits. [GN] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BMW of North America, LLC. The case is styled as Peter Grayson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BMW OF North America LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft AG Munich Germany, Case No. 2:22-cv-06103-SDW-MAH (D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability. BMW of North America, LLC -- http://www.bmwusa.com/-- is an importer and distributor of BMW luxury and performance vehicles, and light trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 421-6492 Fax: (212) 421-6553 Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective 3G Telematics Systems --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL DRELICH; MICHAEL INCAVO; and ROGER SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06822 (D.N.J., Nov. 28, 2022) is a class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States who purchased or leased BMW branded vehicles that had telematics systems rendered wholly or partially inoperable due to the sunsetting of 3G services in the affected BMW vehicles (the "Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles"). According to the Plaintiff, the Class Vehicles have a telematics system that requires wireless network connectivity to remain wholly operable. However, due to the Defendant's decision to equip the Class Vehicles with obsolete telematics equipment, many of the Class Vehicles' Internet enabled features -- such as collision notification and roadside assistance safety features -- have become inoperable because the Class Vehicles' internet enabled features no longer are supported due to the discontinuation of 3G networks in the Vehicles, says the suit. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC markets and sells motor vehicles. The Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts, apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers vehicle financing and leasing services. The Plaintiffs are employed by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com BOEING CO: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- James Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that over two years ago, the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to dismiss a putative civil RICO class action alleging an "overcharge-by-fraud" theory, where the class representatives appeared to have suffered no injury at all. See Earl v. The Boeing Co., No. 4:19-cv-00507, 2020 WL 759385 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2020) ("Earl I"). We wrote an article criticizing that decision as inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit's "no injury" ruling in Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002), predicting that the Fifth Circuit would one day reverse it. See E.D. Texas rules that fraudulent overcharge theory supplies standing for civil RICO class action (Feb. 27, 2020). That day has come, as the Fifth Circuit concluded that the class plaintiffs did not allege a plausible Article III injury-in-fact. See Earl v. Boeing Co., -- F.4th --, No. 21-40720, 2022 WL 17088680 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2022) ("Earl II"). Although Earl II was an interlocutory appeal of the district court's class certification ruling, the appellate court's decision focused on the class plaintiffs' implausible allegations of economic harm. Following two tragic crashes of Boeing's MAX 8 airplanes - Lion Air Flight 610 off the coast of Indonesia and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in Ethiopia - eleven individuals who had taken Southwest Airlines flights on the MAX 8 filed a putative class action against Southwest and Boeing in the Eastern District of Texas. The class plaintiffs alleged fraud-based federal RICO claims based on the alleged concealment of defects in the MAX 8's computer-controlled aviation system (the "MCAS Defect"), as well as other related fraudulent conduct. The class plaintiffs did not have a bad experience on their MAX 8 flights - they purchased their tickets from Southwest and were safely transported to the destinations of their choice. Moreover, they disclaimed any physical injury based on the MCAS Defect. But they asserted two forms of injury. First, they alleged that, had they known the MAX 8 was "fatally defective," they never would have purchased their plane tickets in the first place, and thus they were entitled to full refunds on their ticket purchases from Southwest. Second, they argued that defendants' allegedly fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations enabled Southwest to overcharge them for their plane tickets. Boeing and Southwest moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and therefore did not have standing to sue. To resolve the standing inquiry, the district court analyzed the two forms of injury alleged by the class plaintiffs. See Earl I, 2020 WL 759385, at *4-10 The district court rejected the first alleged harm - a full refund of the ticket purchases - as a "no injury" claim foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Rivera. In that case, plaintiffs who had purchased pain medication that caused certain users to experience liver failure - but who did not themselves suffer liver failure or allege any physical or emotional injuries - alleged that they had been induced to purchase a defective drug and demanded refunds for their purchases. The Fifth Circuit rejected this "no injury" theory on standing grounds, because plaintiffs purchased and received effective pain medication that did not manifest a defect when they took it. Rivera, 283 F.3d at 319-321. In other words, they got what they purchased. According to the district court, plaintiffs' refund or "money back" theory presented the sort of "no injury" cause of action foreclosed by Rivera: "Like the Rivera plaintiffs' no-injury products liability claim, Plaintiffs' first theory of injury is: Defendants manufactured and operated the MAX 8; Plaintiffs purchased a ticket for a flight, potentially on a MAX 8; Defendants did not warn Plaintiffs of the MAX 8's dangers and/or the MAX 8 was defective; people other than Plaintiffs were killed by the MAX 8's defect; [and] Plaintiffs want their money back for their tickets." Earl I, 2020 WL 759385, at *6. But the district court accepted the class plaintiffs' overcharge theory. As described by the Fifth Circuit, under the overcharge theory, absent the fraud, demand for tickets on routes flying the Max 8 would have gone down, depressing ticket prices: "So, the theory goes, plaintiffs paid a fraud-induced overcharge at the time they bought their tickets, and they have Article III standing to recover the amount of that overcharge." Earl II, 2022 WL 17088680, at *2. Accordingly, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on their "overcharge-by-fraud" theory. Earl I, 2020 WL 759385, at *7-10. The litigation proceeded through class discovery (including expert discovery) and briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification, with the district court ultimately certifying four different classes of ticket purchasers. Southwest and Boeing then sought an interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule 23(f), which the Fifth Circuit granted. The panel focused its analysis on Article III standing, quoting Rivera: "Though Rule 23(f) allows a party to appeal only the issue of class certification, standing is an inherent prerequisite to the class certification inquiry. Accordingly, standing may - indeed must - be addressed even under the limits of a Rule 23(f) appeal." Earl II, 2022 WL 17088680, at *2 (quoting Rivera, 283 F.3d at 319). According to the panel, the "overcharge-by-fraud" theory "rests on two unsupportable inferences." Id. at *4. The first inference was that, assuming the public knew about the MCAS Defect, the same MAX 8 routes would have been offered, "but with a price discount to compensate for the heightened risk that passengers would die." Id. According to the panel, that theory was not plausible. The more plausible theory was that no MAX 8 flights would have been offered, meaning "ticket fares would have likely gone up because the airlines' usable fleets would have been smaller in the meantime. (In other words, the airlines' supply of seats would have gone down, demand would have stayed the same, and prices would have risen as a result.)" Id. The second inference - that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would have permitted those flights - was even more implausible: "That's because in reality, after the public learned the full extent of the risk caused by the MCAS defect, regulators worldwide grounded the MAX 8. The FAA, for example, grounded the MAX 8 for 20 months." Id. Such a "but-for" scenario would have reduced the "seat supply," driving up ticket prices. At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel asserted that a rejection of their theory of standing would jeopardize all kinds of fraud-based cases, given that many consumer fraud cases rely on an "overcharge-by-fraud" theory. The panel dismissed that argument, stating: "In an ordinary fraud lawsuit - a pyramid scheme, for example - there are identifiable victims who lost money that wouldn't have been lost in a counterfactual world without the fraudulent scheme." Id. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, potentially benefited from the scheme: "If the MCAS defect had been widely exposed earlier, the MAX 8 flights plaintiffs chose would have been unavailable and they'd have had to take different, more expensive (or otherwise less desirable) flights instead." Id. Accordingly, the panel reversed the class certification ruling, remanding with instructions that the case be dismissed, holding: "[Plaintiffs] concededly have suffered no physical harm. They have offered no plausible theory of economic harm. At bottom, plaintiffs complain of a past risk of physical injury to which they were allegedly exposed because of defendants' fraud. But because that risk never materialized, plaintiffs have suffered no injury in fact and lack Article III standing." Id. at *5. [GN] BOEING COMPANY: 5th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Earl Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled Damonie Earl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. The Boeing Company; Southwest Airlines Company, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 21-40720 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the order granting the motion for class certification. The other Plaintiffs-Appellees are Linda Rugg, Alesa Beck, Timothy Blakey, Jr., Stephanie Blakey, Marisa Thompson, Muhammad Muddasir Khan, John Rogers, Valerie Mortz-Rogers, James LaMorte, Brett Noble, Ruben Castro, Fritz Ringling, Litaun Lewis and Lance Hogue, Jr. The Plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit allege that Boeing and Southwest Airlines defrauded them by, among other things, concealing a serious safety defect in the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. The district court certified four classes encompassing those who purchased or reimbursed approximately 200 million airline tickets for flights that were flown or could have been flown on a MAX 8. The matter is an interlocutory appeal of a district court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to recover under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for alleged fraud by Boeing and Southwest Airlines in connection with the certification and marketing of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have a unique and "symbiotic" business relationship. As part of that relationship, Southwest only flies variants of the Boeing 737 aircraft. When Boeing announced the new MAX 8 variant in 2011, Southwest was the launch customer. The Plaintiffs allege that behind the scenes, Southwest aggressively pressured Boeing to deliver the MAX 8 without requiring pilots to undergo significant additional training. Southwest wanted Boeing to convince the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that the MAX 8 and a previous 737 variant--the 737 NG--were so similar that pilots did not need to complete new flight-simulator training for the MAX 8. Instead, a short course on an iPad or computer would be sufficient. This abbreviated training program is called "Level B pilot training." The Defendants' effort to ensure Level B pilot training encountered various difficulties. Most relevant here, Boeing's decision to place more powerful engines closer to the fuselage and farther forward on the aircraft (to enhance fuel efficiency) meant that the MAX 8 handled differently from the 737 NG. So Boeing added the "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System" ("MCAS") to the MAX 8. MCAS automatically adjusted the trim of the aircraft to make the MAX 8 mimic the handling and flight behavior of the 737 NG. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants omitted references to MCAS in flight crew documentation and misled the FAA about the significance and operation of MCAS. The Defendants also coordinated communications to the public and the press to minimize public concern about the MAX 8. Boeing succeeded in getting Level B training approval for the MAX 8 and began delivering MAX 8 aircraft to Southwest and American Airlines. Throughout the class period (August 2017 to March 2019), MAX 8 aircraft made up at most 34 of over 700 planes in Southwest's fleet, and 28 of over 1,500 planes in American's fleet. During Lion Air Flight 610 on Oct. 29, 2018, a faulty Angle-of-Attack sensor on a MAX 8 fed incorrect information to the flight computer. MCAS took control of the plane and improperly pushed the nose down. The plane crashed, killing everyone on board. On March 10, 2019, another MAX 8 flight--Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302--suffered the same fate. After this second crash, the MAX 8 was grounded worldwide. The 11 named Plaintiffs filed suit in July 2019. They sought to represent everyone, who purchased a ticket for air travel on Southwest or American Airlines between Aug. 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019 (the "Class Period"). They alleged the class overpaid for plane tickets: "The actual prices of the tickets that were purchased as a result of the misrepresentations by Southwest and Boeing about the safety of the MAX 8 and MAX Series Aircraft were significantly higher than the value of those tickets, which for many, if not most, passengers was zero." The Plaintiffs included American Airlines ticket purchasers as proposed class members because, as they put it, the same Boeing-Southwest conspiracy that caused passengers to fly on a MAX 8 on Southwest Airlines proximately caused passengers to fly on other airlines that flew the MAX 8, such as American Airlines (when they would not have done so but for the Boeing-Southwest conspiracy, which hid safety issues with the airplane). The airlines moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing to the extent they alleged that if they had known the MAX 8 was fatally defective, they would never have purchased a ticket, so they want their money back. The Plaintiffs next moved for class certification. The district court granted the motion and certified four classes covering nearly 200 million ticket purchases. The Defendants petitioned the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification decision. The Court of Appeals granted it. The Defendants then moved the Court of Appeals to stay district court proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal. The Court of Appeals granted that motion, too (Earl v. Boeing Co., 21 F.4th 895, 897 (5th Cir. 2021)). Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham, writing for the Panel, notes that the dispute in this case concerns injury in fact. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants fraudulently concealed defects in the MAX 8 that threatened passengers with a serious risk of physical injury or death. But no Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered or will suffer any physical injury as a result of the Defendants' fraud, Judge Oldham holds. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs expressly disclaim any recovery for physical injury. Instead, the complaint asserts the Plaintiffs "were harmed and suffered actual damages" because the ticket prices they paid "were significantly higher than the value of those tickets, which for many, if not most, passengers was zero." As the district court observed, there are two ways to understand this alleged injury. The first is that the Plaintiffs were allegedly harmed because the Defendants' fraud induced them to buy tickets they never would have bought otherwise. The second is that the Plaintiffs were harmed because the Defendants' fraud allowed Southwest and American Airlines to set higher fares for the Plaintiffs' tickets than they could or would have done absent the fraud. Everyone now agrees the first theory of injury cannot support Article III standing under the Panel's decision in Rivera, Judge Oldham says. The Plaintiffs, therefore, fall back to their second theory--what this Court will call the "overcharge-by-fraud" theory. This theory seeks to recover for a purported economic injury rather than any risk of physical injury. The Plaintiffs have attempted to show that they suffered this sort of economic injury through the report and testimony of their principal expert, Professor Greg Allenby. Professor Allenby used conjoint analysis--a survey-based technique--to show that demand for flights on MAX 8 aircraft would have lessened if the public had known the information about the MCAS defect that was allegedly concealed by defendants' fraud. Unsurprisingly, respondents showed less willingness to fly on MAX 8 flights after watching a video discussing the MCAS defect. Judge Oldham opines that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that they're any worse off financially because the Defendants' fraud allowed Southwest and American Airlines to keep flying the MAX 8 during the class period. If anything, Judge Oldham says, the Plaintiffs are likely better off financially. If the MCAS defect had been widely exposed earlier, the MAX 8 flights the Plaintiffs chose would have been unavailable and they'd have had to take different, more expensive (or otherwise less desirable) flights instead, Judge Oldham points out. In sum, Judge Oldham finds the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any concrete injury. They concededly have suffered no physical harm. They have offered no plausible theory of economic harm. At bottom, the Plaintiffs complain of a past risk of physical injury to which they were allegedly exposed because of the Defendants' fraud. But because that risk never materialized, the Plaintiffs have suffered no injury in fact and lack Article III standing. Their case, therefore, must be dismissed, Judge Oldham holds. The district court's class certification order is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3snbb6us from Leagle.com. BOSLEY INC: Court Issues Final Approval Order in Hashemi Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment in the lawsuit styled KEN HASHEMI, STEVE ALTES, SANDRA JOHNSON-FOSTER, GREGORY BOUTE, RAFAEL ARTIME, and JOHN BOWDEN as individuals and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOSLEY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00946-PSG(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.). On Feb. 22, 2022, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the Jan. 6, 2022 Settlement Agreement and Release between Plaintiffs Ken Hashemi, Steve Altes, Sandra Johnson-Foster, Gregory Boute, Rafael Artime, and John Bowden, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendant Bosley, Inc. Commencing on April 8, 2022, pursuant to the notice requirements in the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order, CPT Group, Inc. (the "Claims Administrator"), provided Notice to Settlement Class Members in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the Notice Program, due process, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Nov. 18, 2022, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing. The Court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation, all claims raised therein, and all Parties thereto, including the Settlement Class. Judge Gutierrez finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's-length, in good faith and without collusion, by capable and experienced counsel, with full knowledge of the facts, the law, and the risks inherent in litigating the Litigation, and with the active involvement of the Parties. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement confers substantial benefits on the Settlement Class Members, is not contrary to the public interest, and will provide the Parties with repose from litigation. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement in full, including the releases therein and the procedures for distribution of funds to Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator. All Settlement Class Members, who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement Class, are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The Parties will carry out their respective obligations under the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms, Judge Gutierrez holds. The relief provided for in the Settlement Agreement will be made available to the various Settlement Class Members submitting valid Claim forms, pursuant to the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement. Two objections to the Settlement were submitted by Settlement Class Members. These two objections were filed by Jude Milson and Peter Henderson through their counsel, The Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, which have been withdrawn. The Court has considered all objections and finds that they do not warrant or support rejection or non-approval of the Settlement. Judge Gutierrez rules that all objections are overruled in all respects. All persons, who did not object to the Settlement in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are deemed to have waived any objections, including by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. Three persons made valid and timely requests to be excluded from the Settlement and the Settlement Class (the "Opt-Out Members"). The Opt-Out Members are not bound by the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment and will not be entitled to any of the benefits afforded to Settlement Class Members under the Settlement Agreement. Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class: All persons residing in the United States whose PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident first announced by Bosley on or about January 26, 2021, including but not limited to the California Settlement Subclass. Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court certifies the following California Settlement Subclass: All persons whose PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident first announced by Bosley on or about January 26, 2021, and who were residing in the State of California at the time their PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Representative Plaintiffs Ken Hashemi, Steve Altes, Sandra Johnson-Foster, Gregory Boute, Rafael Artime, and John Bowden as the class representatives and concludes that they have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court grants final approval to the appointment as Class Counsel to M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman, LLP. Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court awards Class Counsel a total of $262,500 in combined attorneys' fees and reimbursement for costs. The Court awards $1,250 to each Representative Plaintiff as service awards. The Court awards The Wilshire Firm, counsel for the former objectors Jude Milson and Peter Henderson, $15,000 as payment for its time and expenses. Each Settlement Class Member, including Representative Plaintiffs, are deemed to have completely and unconditionally released, forever discharged and acquitted Defendant and the other Released Persons from all the Released Claims. The Defendant will pay all costs of the settlement, including all awards and payments to Settlement Class Members, costs of Claims Administration, the Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Award to Class Counsel, and the Representative Plaintiffs' service awards. The Court dismisses the Action in its entirety with prejudice, and without fees or costs except as otherwise provided for herein. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j2xszhb from Leagle.com. M. Anderson Berry -- aberry@justice4you.com -- CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP., in Sacramento, California; Jeffrey S. Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. David K. Lietz -- dlietz@milberg.com -- MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ex Kano S. Sams II -- esams@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Gary E. Mason -- gmason@masonllp.com -- Danielle L. Perry -- dperry@masonllp.com -- MASON LLP, in Washington, D.C. BURLINGTON NORTHERN: BNSF to Appeal $228M Judgment in BIPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that BNSF Railway expects to appeal the judgment entered against the Company on October 12, 2022, in the amount of $228 million in the class action complaint alleging violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On April 4, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against BNSF Railway alleging that BNSF obtained biometric identifiers from third-party truck drivers using the auto-gate system at BNSF's facilities within the State of Illinois without obtaining their informed written consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On October 12, 2022, a judgment was entered against BNSF in the amount of $228 million. Decisions by the Illinois Supreme Court are pending in other cases that are expected to provide binding guidance on the interpretation of BIPA that may significantly impact issues relevant to BNSF's case. BNSF is evaluating options and expects to appeal the judgement entered against the Company. While the ultimate resolution of this matter is subject to further developments, the Company does not believe that the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is the parent company of the BNSF Railway (formerly the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway). The company is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, which is controlled by investor Warren Buffett. CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Biele Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEFINA BIELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00343-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 28, 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 Biele was employed by the Defendant as home manager. CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE, LLC operates as a home health care agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys Fees' Judgment in Franco Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MANUEL FRANCO; JOSE RIOS; and LUIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01464-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVDS1902553) and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 7, 2019. The Plaintiffs brought this class action over Defendants' alleged employment discrimination practices. The Defendant previously filed an appeal, Case No. 22-56048, on Nov. 14, 2022 from the October 27, 2022 Order signed by Judge Jesus G. Bernal (1) granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees; and (2) vacating the October 31, 2022 Hearing. The Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and awarded Plaintiffs $161,918.25 in attorneys' fees. The Defendant filed anew an appeal from the November 15, 2022 Judgment by Judge Bernal that Plaintiffs are entitled to $161,918.25 in attorneys' fees and $520 in costs, pursuant to the said October 27, 2022 Order granting-in-part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and the Bill of Costs dated July 18, 2022. The new appellate case is captioned as Manuel Franco, et al. v. Central Transport LLC, Case No. 22-56069, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Nov. 18, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Central Transport LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 25, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 19, 2022; -- Transcript is due on Jan. 17, 2023; -- Appellant Central Transport LLC opening brief is due on February 27, 2023; -- Appellees Manuel Franco, Jose Rios and Luis Rios answering brief is due on March 27, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC is represented by: Christian J. Keeney, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 - and - Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL FRANCO, JOSE RIOS, and LUIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 CITIBANK NA: Class Settlement in FrontPoint Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Citi, which was consented to by Citi. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 22, 2018 between the Representative Plaintiffs and Citi, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to Citi (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Citi. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former Citi employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by Citi; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with Citi who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to Citi will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cwnash2 from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With HSBC Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with HSBC, which was consented to by HSBC. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 3, 2022 between the Representative Plaintiffs and HSBC, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to HSBC (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against HSBC. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former HSBC employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by HSBC; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than HSBC; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with HSBC who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to HSBC will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4p5bdvwz from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With ING Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with ING Bank N.V. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with ING, which was consented to by ING. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 17, 2022, between the Representative Plaintiffs and ING, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to ING (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against ING. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former ING employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by ING; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with ING who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to ING will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b42wkmk from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal With JPMorgan Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with JPMorgan, which was consented to by JPMorgan. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Nov. 14, 2018 between the Representative Plaintiffs and JPMorgan, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to JPMorgan (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against JPMorgan. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former JPMorgan employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by JPMorgan; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with JPMorgan who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to JPMorgan will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s93bnr2f from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Deal With Deutsche Bank Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Deutsche Bank AG. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Deutsche Bank, which was consented to by Deutsche Bank. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 17, 2022 between the Representative Plaintiffs and Deutsche Bank, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to Deutsche Bank (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. The Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Deutsche Bank. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former Deutsche Bank employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by Deutsche Bank; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with Deutsche Bank who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to Deutsche Bank will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/46b889nd from Leagle.com. DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Travonne Hooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dignity Health, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30675 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 21, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07699-DSF-PD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Dignity Health -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/ -- ais a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: ((800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and - Fred Rispoli, Esq. TORKLAW 18650 Macarthur Boulevard Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 313-7733 Fax: (800) 979-0262 - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: jason@kazlg.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig J. Mariam, Esq. Lara S. Garner, Esq. Rachel N. Rivers, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 633 West 5th Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5000 Fax: (877) 306-0043 Email: cmariam@gordonrees.com lsgarner@grsm.com rrivers@grsm.com DIRECTV LLC: December 19 Settlement Claim Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Huffman, writing for Consumer Affairs, report that if you are one of the many consumers who received a barrage of unsolicited telemarketing calls from DirecTV or their debt collectors, you may be due a share of a $17 million settlement. The TV provider agreed to settle a lawsuit by consumers who said they got calls from DirecTV or from debt collectors, even though they had not been customers since 2004. The suit charged the contacts were illegal under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and a judge agreed. Time is running short to receive compensation since the deadline is Dec. 19. Electrolux dryers If you purchased an Electrolux clothes dryer more than a decade ago, you may be due a portion of an undisclosed financial settlement. The company has settled a class-action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who claimed the appliances were defective and prone to igniting lint. The settlement includes consumers who purchased the machines between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2011. The suit claims consumers would not have purchased the dryers if they had known about the defect. The plaintiffs alleged the company violated its warranties and violated consumer protection laws, profiting from the sale of the defective dryers. Affected consumers have until Dec. 31 to file a claim. Chicken price-fixing Long before chicken prices surged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, some consumers complained that chicken prices were being held artificially high. As the result of a class-action lawsuit settlement, chicken processors have agreed to pay $181 million. The suit claimed Tyson Food, Fieldale, George's, Mar-Jac, Peco, and Pilgrim's Pride conspired to raise the price of chicken products in a coordinated move. Consumers may be eligible for compensation if they purchased whole chicken, chicken breasts, or chicken wings from any of those producers between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 31, 2019. Consumers can use this claim form but must file by Dec. 31. GE data breach General Electric (GE) is paying an undisclosed amount of money to settle a class-action suit stemming from a data breach that occurred in 2020. The plaintiffs sued, claiming GE did not properly address the issue. Under the terms of the settlement, if you received a notification that your information may have been exposed in the breach, you may be due compensation. The plaintiffs claimed GE could have prevented the breach by following proper security protocols. The breach exposed names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and other sensitive data. Consumers have until Dec. 22 to file a claim. Pet food Pet food maker Pets Global is paying almost $2 million to consumers who purchased its Zignature dog food. The class-action lawsuit charged the company promoted the product as grain-free or chicken-free when, in fact, it contained one or both of the ingredients. The plaintiffs contend they would not have purchased the product if they knew the actual ingredients. To be eligible for compensation under the settlement consumers must have purchased Zignature dog food between June 2, 2017, and June 24, 2022. Consumers must file a claim by Dec. 21. [GN] EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Faces Class Suit Over Personal Info Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Hellen Zaboulani, writing for The Jewish Voice, reports that one of the biggest private ambulance companies in New York State is being slapped with an extensive class action lawsuit for waiting months to notify more than 318,500 of their customers that their personal information was compromised. As reported by the NY Post, after Empress Ambulance Services was hacked by Hive Gang, a notorious ransomware group, and client info was stolen, they only told customers that a "small subset of files" had been stolen. The company knew, however, that the social security numbers of more than 100,000 individuals were stolen, along with their names, dates of birth, demographic information, diagnosis and treatment information, and medical records, as per a recent lawsuit filed against the company. The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court last Tuesday, alleges that though the hack occurred in late May, the company did not detect it until July 14, and furthermore waited until Sept. 9 to notify victims. Empress EMS, a Yonkers-based company, received emails from the criminal enterprise, Hive Gang, taking responsibility and bragging for the hack, as per the FBI. "We infiltrated your network and stayed there for 12 days (it was enough to study all your documentation and gain access to your files and services), encrypted your servers, [d]ownloaded most important information with a total size over 280 GB," the hacker group wrote Empress, as per the filed lawsuit. The company, however, allegedly did not tell clients that the hack was by Hive Gang, an infamous group which became active in June 2021 and has since profited more than $100 million in ransom payouts from 1,300 companies it targeted around the world. Hive ransomware has been targeting a wide range of businesses and critical infrastructure sectors, including Government Facilities, Communications, Critical Manufacturing, Information Technology, and especially Healthcare and Public Health (HPH), as per the government's Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency advisory. "Hive actors have gained initial access to victim networks by using single factor logins via Remote Desktop Protocol", in some cases bypassing multifactor authentication, the government website says in a general warning against the group. Hive also has been notorious for distributing phishing emails with malicious attachments, and for "exploiting vulnerabilities against Microsoft Exchange servers", per the public FBI advisory. As per the Post, the lawsuit claims that the hacker group listed Empress on their website on the dark web following the data breach, and that compromised files taken from the ambulatory company have been found to be available for download on the dark web. It's not known if Empress has paid any ransom to Hive gang. In September, when Empress first sent the letter notifying customers, it offered impacted patients a free 12-month membership in Experian Identity Works. The 46-page class action lawsuit filed last week is just one of at least four separate legal complaints filed against Empress. The suit seeks an undisclosed amount in damages. Empress did not reply to the Post's request for comment. [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bradberry Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charmayne Bradberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04754-CAP-LTW (N.D. Ga., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC -- http://www.equifax.com/-- provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3895 Brookgreen Pt. Decatur, GA 30034 Phone: (404) 500-7861 Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC-NJ 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 P.O. Box 07712 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com FIBROGEN INC: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Fibrogen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Between April 2021 and May 2021, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against FibroGen and certain of its current and former executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits allege that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. On August 30, 2021, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on October 29, 2021 and a corrected consolidated amended complaint on November 19, 2021 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges false and misleading statements between December 2018 and June 2021 and seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased FibroGen securities between December 20, 2018 and July 15, 2021. On July 15, 2022, the court issued an order denying Defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants answered the Complaint on September 13, 2022 and discovery is ongoing. FibroGen, Inc. operates as a research-based pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapeutic agents to treat serious unmet medical needs. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Filing of Instanter Reply in Securities Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled In re FIRSTENERGY CORP SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 2:20-cv-3785 (S.D. Ohio), Chief District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Instanter Reply in Support of Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Aggregation Order and Request to Stay Nunc Pro Tunc. The Magistrate Judge's Oct. 18, 2022 Order resolves a dispute between the parties regarding coordination of fact depositions between the instant case and the Direct Action cases. The Class Plaintiffs' Objection to the Oct. 18, 2022 Order was met with responses in opposition from the Defendants and the Direct-Action Plaintiffs. The Class Plaintiffs then, without first seeking leave of court, filed their reply to the opposition memoranda. But as the Defendants correctly noted in their Motion to Strike Class Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum, the Class Plaintiffs were required to seek leave from the Court to file their reply brief, Judge Marbley states. The Class Plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to do so. The Court, however, credits the Class Plaintiffs' acknowledgment of their procedural error and their attempt to rectify the same via their Motion for Leave. The Class Action Plaintiffs' Motion is, thus, granted, and the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum is denied. The Court will consider the Class Action Plaintiffs' earlier-filed reply brief. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s34cj6u from Leagle.com. FIS MANAGEMENT: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01218-SCD (E.D. Wis., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid regular and agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Customer Service or Fraud Associate employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed—specifically computer "boot up" time prior to their scheduled shift start times each workday and computer "boot down" time after their scheduled shift end times each workday--to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Fraud Associate in early September 2022. The Defendant is a financial technology 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 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com FREESTYLE SOLUTIONS: Fritz Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freestyle Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fritz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freestyle Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-06196-KM-MAH (D.N.J., Oct. 20, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Freestyle Solutions -- https://www.freestylesolutions.com/ -- is a leading PCI compliant inventory, order and customer management system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared Ross Cooper, Esq. ROBINSON & YABLON, P.C. 232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 725-8566 Fax: (212) 725-8567 Email: jcooper@ryinjury.com FRESH VENTURES: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wage Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino, writing for Human Resources Director, reports that an employer has lost an appeal in the California Court of Appeal for the Second District after it was ruled that two employees did not sign an arbitration agreement and terms regarding a third employee were substantively unconscionable (primarily one-sided in the employer's favour). Juan Navas, Martha Herrera Lopez, and Benjamin Hernandez Ramos - the plaintiffs in the case of Navas et al. v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC - and other employees filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, Fresh Venture Foods, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages. They also brought a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for civil penalties or damages for labor law violations on behalf of themselves and other employees. The company brought a motion to compel arbitration. It claimed that the three plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements consenting to arbitrate their individual claims against the employer and giving up the right to represent others in litigation or to participate in class actions. The trial court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor. It found that the company failed to prove that Lopez and Ramos entered into arbitration agreements and that the agreement that Navas signed was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The employer appealed. The California Court of Appeal for the Second District agreed with the trial court's decision. First, the appellate court found that Ramos and Lopez did not sign the arbitration agreement. Both employees alleged that they did not see the arbitration document and did not recognize the signatures as their own. Second, the Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitration agreement with Navas was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Regarding procedural unconscionability, the appellate court found that the employer used its "superior bargaining power" to make the provisions favorable to itself before they gave it to Navas on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As for substantive unconscionability, the Court of Appeal determined that the agreement's terms, which described the type of claims covered by arbitration, were primarily one-sided in the employer's favor. The employer one-sidedly declared a right to forfeit individual PAGA claims without first explaining the meaning of an individual PAGA claim to the Spanish-speaking employee and without getting the employee's consent to waive the right to file an individual PAGA claim in court, the appellate court said. While employees were free to forgo the option of pursuing a PAGA claim, it would be against public policy for arbitration agreements to deprive employees of this option before a dispute even arose, the Court of Appeal added. [GN] FRESNO PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO PEREZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESNO PLUMBING & HEATING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 220V407272 (S.D. Cal., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 28, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as staff. FRESNO PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. provides plumbing services. The Company offers drain cleaning solutions, leak detection, re-piping, and video camera inspection services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Beatriz Alfaro, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatemngaternlawgroup.com iboxer@matemlawgroub.com balfaro@maternlaw2roun.com - and - Sara B. Tosdal, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1330 Broadway, Suite 436 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1 901 Email: stosdal@maternlawgroup.com GENERAC HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight to protect shareholder rights for over 20 years, informs investors that a that a purchaser of Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GRNC), who suffered losses in Generac stock, filed a class action complaint against the Company for violations of the securities laws. The Generac class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GRNC) common stock between April 29, 2021 and November 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association v. Generac Holdings Inc., No. 22-cv-01436 (E.D. Wis.). The Generac class action lawsuit charges Generac and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the Generac Class Action Lawsuit Generac manufactures electric generators and backup power solutions. A component at the core of Generac's solar power products is the "SnapRS," which is intended to perform an essential safety function by rapidly shutting down solar devices in certain dangerous situations. Generac relied on "channel partners" to sell, service, and install its solar battery storage systems, including Power Home Solar, LLC d/b/a Pink Energy ("Pink Energy"). During the Class Period, Pink Energy was the largest of these partners, with operations in 15 states. The Generac class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Generac's SnapRS components would overheat, melt, and, in some cases, start fires; (ii) Generac was far more dependent on the revenue generated from its channel partner, Pink Energy, than disclosed to investors; and (iii) Generac misrepresented its warranty liability in connection with defective SnapRS components, overstated its earnings, and falsely assured investors that Generac's financial statements were Generally Accepted Accounting Principles compliant. On August 1, 2022, Pink Energy filed a lawsuit against Generac, revealing Generac's "defective" SnapRS components caused millions of dollars of damages, giving rise to liability that threatened Pink Energy's solvency. On this news, Generac shares declined by more than $3. Soon after, Pink Energy filed for bankruptcy. Then, on October 19, 2022, Generac revealed that it had taken "pre-tax charges totaling approximately $55 million, including approximately $37 million of clean energy product warranty-related matter and approximately $18 million of bad debt expense related to a clean energy product customer that has filed for bankruptcy." On this news, the price of Generac shares declined approximately 25%. Finally, on November 2, 2022, Generac released its earnings results for the third quarter of 2022, and lowered sales guidance on its solar energy business for the remainder of the year by approximately 40%. On a conference call with investors and analysts held that same day, Generac's CEO, defendant Aaron Jagdfeld, attributed the lowered guidance to "the loss of a major customer during the quarter, along with the specific warranty-related issue" - i.e., the defective SnapRS component and the Pink Energy bankruptcy that resulted directly from that defect. On this news, the price of Generac shares declined by an additional 8%, further damaging investors. Lead plaintiff motions for the Generac Industries class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 30, 2023. Generac Shareholders Urged to Contact the Firm If you purchased Generac securities, have information, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click here for more information or contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to tmiles@timmileslaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and the number shares owned. About Timothy L. Miles Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentely selected by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM as a 2022 Top Ranked Lawyer and a 2022 Top Rated Litigator. Mr. Miles also maintains the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating for both legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019) and recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction (2019). Awards: Top Rated Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2019); AV(R)Preeminent™ Rating by Martindale-Hubble(R)(2014-2020); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™ for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)2015); Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for (Avvo 2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored numerous publications advocating for shareholdings including most recently: Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities Firms Provides Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3, 2019). Contact: Timothy L. Miles, Esq. Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles 109 Summit Ridge Ct. Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (855-846-6529) Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com Website: www.classactionlawyertn.com Timothy L. Miles Law Offices Of Timothy L. Miles +1 855-846-6529 [GN] GERON CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement on March 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of the consolidated class action complaint over false and misleading statements made by the Company related to IMbark has been set for March 30, 2023. Between January 23, 2020 and March 5, 2020, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers. One of the lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed on March 19, 2020. The other two lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court, or the Court, for the Northern District of California, or the Northern District, were consolidated by the Court on May 14, 2020, and on August 20, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to IMbark during the period from March 19, 2018, to September 26, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose facts related to the alleged failure of IMbark to meet the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and Total Symptom Score, and that the Company's stock price dropped when such information was disclosed. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaint seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees. On October 22, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint on November 23, 2020. On April 12, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's answer to the amended and consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 13, 2021. On September 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and on April 2, 2022, the Court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 2, 2022, the parties agreed to a settlement, which is subject to Court approval. On October 13, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement, permitted notice to be distributed to the class members, and scheduled a final approval hearing for March 30, 2023. In connection with the settlement, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, or the Stipulation, on September 2, 2022 to resolve the consolidated class action complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendants in the consolidated class action complaint, the Company's agreed to pay and/or to cause its insurance carriers to pay a total of $24,000,000, comprised of $17,000,000 in cash, which is expected to be paid under the available D&O insurance coverage and, at its election, $7,000,000 in either shares of Geron common stock and/or cash. The proposed settlement does not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing by Geron or its Chief Executive Officer. The proposed settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions. As of September 30, 2022, on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet, the Company has recorded the total settlement amount of $24,000,000 as accrued liabilities and $17,000,000 as interest and other receivables. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, the Company has recognized $7,000,000 as general and administrative expense on the Company's condensed consolidated statements of operations. Geron Corporation is a biotechnology company located in Foster City, California, which specializes in developing and commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that inhibit telomerase. GOOGLE LLC: Judge Grants Class Action Status in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Belanger, writing for Ars Technica, reports that next summer, courts will decide whether Google is guilty of "misleading" millions of Google Play users by warning them against using any other app stores or services to download apps. A judge granted class-action status to antitrust litigation that now covers 21 million Google Play customers in 12 states—Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—and five US territories, including American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. The lawsuit claims that Google's misleading warnings led millions of customers nationwide to pay "artificially inflated" prices for apps they could have downloaded cheaper elsewhere. Last year, dozens of state attorneys general sued Google on these same antitrust grounds. Those state enforcers alleged that Google made it impossible for other app stores to compete, and the company had a monopoly on Android apps. The legal teams for the customers suing are now joining forces with the states suing; if the customers win, Google owner Alphabet Inc. could be on the hook for an estimated $4.7 billion in damages from the class-action suit alone. Initially, Google had opposed the class-action designation, claiming in part that each of the individual plaintiffs suing couldn't demonstrate actual harm, potentially allowing uninjured parties to join the class action. US District Judge James Donato disagreed with Google in his order granting class-action status. "In effect, Google demands that each class member individually prove an injury before certification may be granted," Donato wrote in his order. "The law provides otherwise. It is true that a class may not be certified when it would be so overinclusive that substantial numbers of uninjured people would populate it. Google has not shown this is a concern here." Plaintiffs argued that the designation was appropriate because Google Play's allegedly "monopolistic" business practices "affected all of the prices set by the developers and paid by consumers to Google." On Nov. 28, a Google spokesperson told Reuters, "We're evaluating the ruling, and after that, we'll assess our options." A Google spokesperson declined further comment to Ars. Lawyers representing the customers suing didn't immediately respond to Ars' request for comment. The trial deciding the class-action litigation is set to start in June 2023. Experts clash over Google Play price models To help the judge decide if the lawsuit is best settled with individual plaintiffs or as a class action, both sides provided expert testimony. This testimony largely focused on whether Google Play app store customers actually paid higher prices across the board. Google disagreed with so much of the opinion of the plaintiffs' expert, Hal J. Singer, that the company asked Donato to exclude his testimony. Google argued in part that Singer used methods to calculate prices in the Google Play Store that Google's expert, Michelle M. Burtis, had "never seen before." According to Google, another alleged flaw in Singer's analysis was that Singer failed to account for real-world data impacting how developers make decisions to raise or lower prices based on app store fees. Burtis claimed that Singer's analysis predicted that all developers would have lowered prices if Google Play lowered its fees, but Burtis' analysis of how developers actually responded when fees were lowered showed that "only a tiny fraction of developers whose service fees Google reduced then reduced prices." Ultimately, Donato denied Google's motion to exclude Singer's testimony, writing in his order that Google's argument against Singer's methodology "is the stuff of cross-examination and not exclusion." Further, Donato said, "it is not necessarily 'surprising' for expert opinions to be based on methods that are new and not been the subject of peer review." Neither Burtis nor Singer responded to Ars' requests for comment. [GN] GORILLAS TECHNOLOGIES: Vasquez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Vasquez, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Gorillas Technologies US Inc., Case No. (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 1, 2022) seeks to recover spread of hours pay and Call-in Pay under New York Labor Law as well as unpaid uniform maintenance pay because the Defendant required the Plaintiff to wear a vest and rain gear but failed to maintain those items. The Plaintiff began working as a delivery rider for Defendant in November 2021 at their 90 West Street, New York, New York 10006 location and is still employed there. The Plaintiff has been paid $15 per hour and has worked an average of 26-28 hours per week. According to the complaint, on multiple occasions throughout Plaintiff's employment, he has arrived at the 90 West Street location to work as scheduled, only to be sent home by Defendant right away or after a short period of time, being told that they did not need him to work that day because the location was not receiving enough orders. On these days when Plaintiff arrived at work, but Defendant sent him home early, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay him the required Call-in Pay of four hours, says the suit. Furthermore, on several occasions throughout his employment, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more than 10 hours during a single workshift. On these days when he was required to work more than ten hours at a time, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the required spread of hours premium of one additional hour's pay, the Plaintiff claims. Gorillas technologies owns and operates a grocery delivery service in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Lipke Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grove Collaborative, Inc., et al. The case is styled as April Lipke, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grove Collaborative, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22602434 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 17, 2022). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Grove -- https://www.grove.co/ -- creates and curates high-performing, planet-first home, and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com HARLEM 421 FOOD: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------- Roberto Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Harlem 421 Food Corp. (DBA Keyfood Supermarket) and Roberto Espinal, Case No. 1:22-cv-10191 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant to work as a laborer, performing general services and cleaning. The Defendants owns, operates, and/or controlled two Supermarkets, located in Bronx, New York and New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. Toneille Raglan, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone: 212-203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com HEALTHCARE INC: Doyle Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Doyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare, Inc. doing business as: Healthcare.com, Case No. 2:22-cv-06957 (D.N.J., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare, Inc. is an online health insurance company providing a data-driven shopping platform that helps consumers enroll in individual health insurance and medicare plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com HOME DEPOT USA: Clark-Alonso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mike Clark-Alonso, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. CGC22602499 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 19, 2022). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Andrew Grover, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 I.C. SYSTEM INC: Fried Sues Over Incorrect and Deceptive Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Fried, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 534754/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants incorrect and deceptive statements in collecting debt. On September 3, 2022, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation(s) to non-party Sprint. The obligation(s) arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, specifically personal connectivity. Moreover, the Letter seeks to collect a debt that the Plaintiff does not owe. Specifically, the Plaintiff never used the Sprint service and returned all of the equipment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff called the Defendant to advise that Sprint left the account open in error, but the Plaintiff's call to the Defendant did not bear fruit. However, the Defendant was hesitant to accept the Plaintiff's dispute over the phone. Accordingly, the Letter and Defendant's collection is facially fraudulent. The nonexistent debt set forth in the Letter, along with the unprofessional omission of the date, left the Plaintiff concerned that the Letter was fraudulent and/or a scam. Ultimately, the Plaintiff called Sprint directly and they admitted the debt was erroneous and the instant action ensued. As a result of the Defendant's multiple FDCPA violations, the Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this debt. Because of this, the Plaintiff expended time, money, and effort in determining the proper course of action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York. The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com IMPERIAL BAG: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diana Meza, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL BAG & PAPER CO. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 22STCV34617 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 1, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08730. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime; failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; failure to maintain accurate employment records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay sick leave; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Hart, Esq. P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Fax: 949.724.1201 Email: jhart@littler.com dbodaghi@littler.com INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Question Certified to N.M. Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JOSHUA SMITH, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, aka AAA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00447-WJ (D.N.M.), Chief District Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order sua sponte certifying question to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The Court certifies the following question to the New Mexico Supreme Court: Whether Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co, 2022-NMSC-001, 501 P.3d 433, applies prospectively or retroactively? Judge Johnson says the New Mexico Supreme Court has discretion to accept or reject this certification and to reformulate the question. In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant raised the determinative question of whether the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2022-NMSC-001, 501 P.3d 433, applies prospectively or retroactively. In 2020--well before the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Crutcher--Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club ("Defendant Exchange") issued Mr. Joshua Smith an automobile insurance policy. The policy provided liability coverage for one vehicle in the amount of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence. The policy also provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence. Mr. Smith paid a premium for the UM/UIM coverage to Defendant Exchange during the relevant period. On Oct. 13, 2020, Mr. Smith alleges he sustained bodily injuries, in excess of $50,000, when he was rear-ended by an at-fault motorist. After the auto collision, he made a claim with the tortfeasor's insurer. The tortfeasor's insurer paid Mr. Smith $25,000--the full extent of the tortfeasor's liability coverage. Mr. Smith also reported the collision to his own insurer, Defendant Exchange, and filed an underinsured motorist claim. Defendant Exchange allegedly denied Mr. Smith's claim after applying the Schmick offset (Schmick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1985-NMSC-073, 103 N.M. 216 (permitting an insured's UIM coverage to be offset by tortfeasor's liability coverage)). In other words, Defendant Exchange is alleged to have refused to pay out Mr. Smith's UIM coverage because his UIM coverage was the same as the tortfeasor's liability coverage; therefore, his UIM coverage was "offset"--i.e., reduced--by the amount of the tortfeasor's liability coverage. In the Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that his UIM coverage was illusory and/or misleading because of the Schmick offset, that the Defendant charged a premium for this illusory coverage, and that the Defendant failed to properly inform him that his UIM coverage would be subject to the Schmick offset. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant for violating New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Insurance Practices Acts; for Reformation of Insurance Policy; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Negligence; Negligent Misrepresentation; Unjust Enrichment; and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The Plaintiff's Complaint was filed after and expressly references the New Mexico Supreme Court's Crutcher decision. In Crutcher, the New Mexico Supreme Court answered two questions certified to it by United States District Court Judge Judith Herrera. The Supreme Court articulated the certified questions as follows: whether the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on a policy that provides minimum uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident is illusory for an insured who sustains more than $25,000 in damages caused by a minimally insured tortfeasor. If so, then we must decide whether insurance companies may charge premiums for such a policy. And the Supreme Court provided the following answer: [W]e conclude that UM/UIM coverage at the minimum level is permitted because the law not only allows, but requires, it to be sold as was done so here. However, such coverage is illusory because it is misleading to the average policyholder. As such, we will now require every insurer to adequately disclose the limitations of minimum limits UM/UIM policies in the form of an exclusion in its insurance policy. If the insurer provides adequate disclosure, it may lawfully charge a premium for such coverage. After Crutcher, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico began experiencing a flurry of Crutcher-related litigation. And defendant insurers began routinely raising the legal question of whether Crutcher applies prospectively or retroactively. In this case, Defendant Exchange has also raised this issue. Defendant Exchange contends Crutcher is expressly prospective and that insurers had no duty to disclose and explain the Schmick offset prior to Crutcher. Moreover, it contends that even if Crutcher is not expressly prospective, it should be applied prospectively because Defendant Exchange provided sufficient proof under the Chevron Oil factors to overcome New Mexico's presumption of retroactivity. Plaintiff Smith disagrees. According to him, "The Court in Crutcher in no manner forgave or immunized insurers from past misconduct of collecting premiums from insureds while providing no coverage for such premiums, and where they misrepresented the coverages available." The Court finds certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court appropriate to resolve the parties' dispute over this question of New Mexico law. Judge Johnson opines that without clear guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court as to whether Crutcher applies prospectively or retroactively, the District of New Mexico has already been flooded with Crutcher-related litigation. He points out that the resolution of the certified question may be determinative of not only issues in this case, but also in numerous other cases. Moreover, the question of whether a New Mexico Supreme Court decision applies prospectively or retroactively is ultimately a question of New Mexico judicial policy, which should be decided when possible by state, not federal, courts. While the Court understands the New Mexico Supreme Court may be reluctant to accept a question so soon after Crutcher, this Court seeks certification because certification may in the long run save time, energy, and resources and help build a cooperative judicial federalism. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vx9ufasu from Leagle.com. Plaintiff Joshua Smith is represented by: Andrea D. Harris Valle, Esq. O'CLEIREACHAIN, ZAMORA & HARRIS, P.C. 1805 Rio Grande Blvd. NW, Suite 2 Albuquerque, NM 87104 Telephone: (505) 888-5613 E-mail: adh@vozhlaw.com - and - Corbin Hildebrandt, Esq. CORBIN HILDEBRANDT, P.C. Sycamore Square, Suite 2000 1400 Central Ave. S.E. Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 998-6626 E-mail: corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com - and - Geoffrey R. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY R. ROMERO 4801 All Saints Road, NW Albuquerque, NM 87120 Telephone: (505) 247-3338 E-mail: geoff@geoffromerolaw.com - and - Kedar Bhasker, Esq. 2741 Indian School Rd. NE, Suite 208 Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 720-2113 E-mail: kedar@bhaskerlaw.com Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club is represented by: Kevin P. Zimmerman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1541 E-mail: kzimmerman@bakerlaw.com - and - Michael Mumford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114-1214 Telephone: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: mmumford@bakerlaw.com - and - Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 462-2616 E-mail: reckelberry@bakerlaw.com - and - Meena H. Allen, Esq. ALLEN LAW FIRM, LLC 6121 Indian School Rd. NE, Suite 230 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Telephone: (505) 298-9400 E-mail: mallen@mallen-law.com INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Pending in Jansen ------------------------------------------------------------------ International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on October 14, 2022, Marc Jansen and other similarly situated plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in their putative securities class action. On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class action against IFF, its then Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to representatives of customers. On March 16, 2020, an amended complaint was filed, which added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the two companies, and the companies' financial reporting and results. The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018 and August 12, 2019. The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020, which was granted on March 30, 2021. On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Lead plaintiffs are pursuing the appeal only against Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom. The parties have submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit held oral argument on February 10, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which is currently pending. International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. is an American corporation that produces flavors, fragrances, and cosmetic actives, which it markets globally. It is headquartered in New York City and has creative, sales, and manufacturing facilities in 44 different countries. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: First Mediation in Oman Suit Held in Sept. ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the parties in the "Oman" suit in Tel Aviv held the first of multiple mediation meetings on September 13, 2022. on July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties' motion to mediate the dispute, which postpones all case deadlines until after the mediation. One of two motions to approve securities class actions was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom and improper payments. One motion ("Borg") asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO. On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding. On June 15, 2021, August 11, 2021, November 9, 2021, January 9, 2022, April 7, 2022 and July 10, 2022, the U.S. lead plaintiffs filed update notices with the Israeli court regarding the appeal in the U.S. proceeding. The other motion ("Oman") (following an initial amendment) asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman motion was filed on July 4, 2021. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2021, Frutarom notified the court that it joins the legal arguments made in the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties' motion to mediate the dispute, which postpones all case deadlines until after the mediation. Also stayed is a request to appeal the court's denial of the motion to dismiss filed by the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors. The parties held the first of multiple mediation meetings on September 13, 2022. International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. is an American corporation that produces flavors, fragrances, and cosmetic actives, which it markets globally. It is headquartered in New York City and has creative, sales, and manufacturing facilities in 44 different countries. IPIC THEATERS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IPIC Theaters, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IPIC Theaters, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07271 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. IPIC Theaters -- https://www.ipic.com/ -- is America's premier theater-and-restaurant brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com J.K. & SONS COFFEE: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.K. & Sons Coffee Shop Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.K. & Sons Coffee Shop Inc., John Zervoudis, Case No. 1:22-cv-07236 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.K. & Sons Coffee Shop is a company that operates in the Restaurants industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Bell, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 280-3008 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: jb@belllg.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Dabbah Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Abraham Dabbah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06894 (D.N.J., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jefferson Capital -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is a leading purchaser and solutions provider in the consumer finance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com JO-ANN STORES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Rath Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WENDY RATH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-791S (W.D.N.Y.), Judge William S. Skretny of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denies both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff's claim for liquidated damages. In this diversity action, the Plaintiff, for herself and a class of similarly situated employees, contends that the Defendant paid her biweekly, rather than weekly as required for a manual worker such as her, violating New York Labor Law Section 191. She seeks to recover the amount of untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Batavia, New York, Fabric & Crafts store from July 2019 to January 2021 then at its Williamsville, New York, store from January to June 2021. She claims that at least a quarter of her job responsibilities included manual labor (such as cutting fabrics for customers, stocking inventory, and working on the sales floor and at the cash register). She was paid biweekly and she now alleges the harm from the late payment of her weekly wages to establish her standing to sue in the Court. The Defendant also does not argue that the Plaintiff lacks standing as alleged in her First Amended Complaint. The Complaint also alleges a class of all persons who worked as manual workers for the Defendant in New York for six years before July 13, 2021 (when the Plaintiff filed her Complaint). The Defendant moved to dismiss the original Complaint, arguing in part that the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Court terminated that Motion to Dismiss and granted the Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint to allege her standing. That earlier Decision left open the question whether Labor Law Section 191 has a private right of action. The Plaintiff then filed her Amended Complaint, expressly stating her grounds for standing. The Defendant does not now challenge the Plaintiff's standing. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's violation of Labor Law Section 191, seeking (among other relief) liquidated damages under Labor Law Section 198(1-a). Currently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss this Amended Complaint and to dismiss her claim therein seeking liquidated damages. Responses to this Motion were due by Oct. 25, 2022, and reply by Nov. 1, 2022. Upon the timely submissions of both sides, the Motion was deemed submitted without oral argument. The Court also considers the relevant arguments made in the Defendant's initial Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint. The remaining questions are whether New York Labor Law Section 191 establishes a private right of action and, if so, can the Plaintiff claim liquidated damages. On the first point, both sides present competing New York State and federal court precedents on the existence of this private right of action based upon other courts accepting the First Department's decision in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, 176 A.D.3d 1144, 107 N.Y.S.3d 286 (1st Dep't 2019). Judge Skretny finds that there is persuasive evidence to believe that the New York State Court of Appeals would adopt the rationale of Vega and conclude that New York Labor Law Section 191 has a private right of action as a Section 6 Labor Law violation under Section 198(1-a). He concludes that New York Labor Law Section 191 established a private right of action of manual employees who were not paid on a weekly basis. This action includes employees who were eventually paid on a biweekly basis. Hence, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is denied. Furthermore, Judge Skretny concludes that the New York Court of Appeals also would recognize liquidated damages as a remedy for this private right of action enforcing Labor Law Section 191. Therefore, he denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's liquidated damages claim. The Defendant has 28 days from that service and filing of the amended pleading to answer. Then the case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge to conduct pretrial proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6aawnmd from Leagle.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Yang Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens ------------------------------------------------------------- Cecilia Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07070 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts arising from the Defendant's false and misleading representations of their sunscreen products. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. manufactures, markets, labels and sells zinc oxide SPF 50 sunscreens in stick format under the Neutrogena brand to babies and adults. Though the two products appear distinct, with the baby variety containing numerous label statements and features absent from the adult version, they are substantively identical, yet sold at dramatically different prices. The Plaintiff asserts that she purchased the Baby product believing and expecting the Baby version was specifically formulated and designed for the unique needs of babies and relied on the labeling and packaging for this conclusion, including the color, claims about its natural and pure qualities, that it was fragrance free and ideal for a baby's sensitive skin, which made her think its higher price compared to the Adult version was justified. However, she alleges that not only do the baby and regular zinc oxide stick sunscreens contain the identical amount of the active zinc oxide ingredient at 21.6%, 12 of their 13 inactive ingredients are identical. The Plaintiff paid more for the Baby version than she would have had she known the representations and omissions that is was specifically formulated for babies and that its price difference compared to the adult version were justified on this basis, were false and misleading, or would not have purchased it. The value of the Baby version that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant, added the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - James Chung, Esq. LAW OFFICE JAMES CHUNG 43-22 216th Street Bayside, NY 11361 Telephone: (718) 461-8808 E-mail: Jchung_77@msn.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Law Firm Proposes $99.5M Share From Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Longbottom, writing for ABC News, reports that one of the first things Janelle Gale mentions is not being able to swim in the ocean for six years. If she had, the tissue around the pelvic mesh placed inside her would become infected, making the pain she was in even more unbearable. Despite having barely any leakage before her 2014 surgery, afterwards she became heavily incontinent. She was a drag-racing champion, but that came to a halt. She said it destroyed her marriage. She couldn't have sex. She still can't work. "I thought my life would be so much better for having [the surgery] … And I got this present instead," the 58-year-old Perth woman said. In September, a $300 million settlement in two class actions over the failed mesh products by Johnson & Johnson Medical and Ethicon brought some relief. The settlement was the biggest win in a product liability case in Australian history. But the satisfaction of the court victory has not lasted long for Ms Gale. Shine Lawyers, which ran the suit, is proposing to take up to $99.5 million from the payout in costs, just under a third of the total sum. That includes $38 million for past costs, up to $35 million for the future costs of distributing the settlement to the women and $26 million for the interest liabilities associated with funding the case. Any final costs order is subject to court approval. The firm has already received an extra $40 million directly from Johnson & Johnson as part of an order arising from the first class action. While pelvic mesh victims have been grappling with the news this week, Shine Lawyers has flown dozens of staff from around the country to Hamilton Island for its inaugural legal symposium. Staff members and the company have been posting photos and the videos of the event on social media -- including black-tie events and boat outings. "I can't comprehend it. I really can't," Ms Gale said. "To hear that they're doing stuff like that -- that trust that just feels broken." A Shine Lawyers spokesperson said the conference had been many years in the planning, had been postponed several times due to the pandemic and was funded in partnership with corporate sponsors. "The purpose of the symposium was to assist our legal teams to complete their continuing professional development units, which are a requirement for all practising solicitors, and to use their learnings to serve our clients," the spokesperson said. Frustration over compensation proposal More than 200 women in the class action group of about 11,000 have indicated to the ABC they're unhappy with the compensation proposal released by Shine Lawyers two weeks ago. Representatives of the group said there was mass confusion over what compensation they might be eligible for and how many hoops they would have to jump through to receive a payment. Many said their calls and emails to Shine seeking clarity had gone unanswered. They were told they would have access to a $7,500 payment if they chose a 'fast track' option, which would be on the lower end of payouts. Otherwise, they would need to go through an assessment process to determine their level of harm, carried out by a personal injury lawyer independent of Shine. Their compensation would then be decided by Shine in accordance with the settlement scheme and consumer law. It's not known how many women will be eligible in the pool, but Shine has indicated it will be at least 6,000. Many of the affected women fear their hopes of substantial individual payouts have been dashed. Ms Gale estimated she spent more than $70,000 on four surgeries trying to remove the mesh. She has withdrawn all her super. She is on a disability pension, has no savings and struggles to pay for all the ongoing medications she needs. "[I was hoping for] enough that could mean that I could live comfortably without worrying every fortnight… do I have enough money to get my meds this month? Or can I afford to go to the dentist because I have a broken tooth?" she said. "So it's all those little things, I thought that the compensation would just give me a little bit more of a comfortable life." Legal experts note split of funds is 'problematic' Several lawyers familiar with the class actions told the ABC there were legitimate questions to be asked about the legal costs. Michael Legg, a professor in the Faculty of Law at UNSW, said Shine's bid for $99.5 million was significantly higher than what was normally seen in class actions. In comparison, the biggest class-action win in Australian history was the Black Saturday Kilmore bushfire settlement of $494.67 million. That included $90 million in costs. "It's a very large amount of money, which will be going to the lawyers, rather than to the group members that have suffered loss. And so I tend to think that's problematic," Professor Legg said. "The whole point of a class action is to achieve access to justice and compensation for the people that have been harmed. "When you have large amounts of money going to lawyers, then that reduces what's there for the people who have really been injured." He said while Shine had disclosed it had received previous costs from Johnson & Johnson in the settlement overview sent to the women -- it did not say it was in the quantum of $40million. "It's unbelievable that that is not clear in the information that is provided." "That makes it very hard to determine if the additional amount that's being claimed, is fair and reasonable." Under compensation law, a proportion of any private health, Medicare and Centrelink payments related to the women's injuries have to be paid back from the settlement. Personal injury lawyer Nick Mann said it could drain the women's pool of compensation of up to $100 million -- leaving them with just $100 million between them. "These repayments could substantially chew up amounts payable in compensation to individual plaintiffs," he said. In October, a Federal Court Justice lambasted Shine Lawyers for not getting together the settlement disbursement plan quickly enough, saying the delay could cause women to lose interest on the $300 million sum. Legal fees balloon from staffing costs There's no doubt the case has been hard fought by Shine and the women they represented. The class action ran for 10 years and the defendants Johnson & Johnson appealed against the mesh victims' wins all the way to the High Court -- leading to more lawyers and more legal fees. Shine also took on the risk of running the case under its "no win, no fee" model. If the firm had lost, it would have been on the hook for tens of millions of dollars. Despite that, Professor Legg said Shine's Hamilton Island symposium was not a good look. "Most clients understand the need to compensate their lawyers for their time and expertise," he said. "But when you see lawyers engaging in, let's call it largesse, then that's when I think clients start to sort of say 'Well, am I am I being charged too much? Like, what am I really paying for here?'" Barrister Peter Cashman has written extensively on the problems with class actions in Australia. Without commenting on this particular case, he said credit needed to go to law firms for taking the risk on the action, but it was time to rein in legal costs. "For example, a $100,000-a-year employee -- a solicitor or paralegal -- can be expected to generate costs or bills per annum of about a million dollars. In other words . . . ten times their cost to the firm in terms of salary," Dr Cashman said. "When I started practice [in 1975], the going rate was about three times." Shine Lawyers will charge paralegals out at $295 per hour for future costs in the mesh case, according to legal documents tendered with the court. The most experienced practitioners cost $790 an hour. Dr Cashman said lessons could be learned from England, where the legal fees in class actions needed to be established before the action even started. Changes need to be approved by the court. "Our methods for judicial control and supervision of costs are only really introduced by and large at the end of the case after the costs have been incurred," he said. "And in most class actions, the plaintiffs who run these cases have very little if any control over the costs." For Gold Coast woman Marsha Healy, who had her pelvic mesh inserted in 2017, the hope is that she can salvage some of the $100,000 she estimates she's lost. Ms Healy had four surgeries to try and fix the damage, and had to cut back on her cleaning work. She's single and has been told she won't be able to have sex again. "I have had depression and anxiety from this as there aren't many men that will want a relationship with someone that can't be intimate. So it's been very lonely," she said. She said from the surgeons, to the medical companies to the lawyers, she felt the women had been used. "We're the ones suffering but everyone else seems to make money out of our suffering," Ms Healy said. Court to rule on final settlement A Federal court judge will examine Shine's settlement proposal on Monday to determine if it is appropriate and fair. The court has appointed a law firm to be a contradictor, who acts for the women and will put forward reasons as to why the settlement should or should not be approved and whether the costs are too high. A Shine Lawyers spokesperson said its position in relation to the proposed settlement would be heard in court. "There is also a contradictor, who will assist the court in its consideration of the issues raised by the proposed settlement," they said. "It is not appropriate for Shine Lawyers to say more about the matter while it is pending before the court." [GN] KROGER COMPANY: Cameron Sues Over Mislabeled Beverage Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CATHLEEN CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00694-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2022) alleges that the Defendant manufactures and sells a mislabeled fruit-flavored sparkling-water beverages that represent and warrant they are "Naturally Flavored" (herein the "Products"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in violation of federal law, Ohio state law, and Tennessee state law, Kroger fails to disclose to consumers that the Products contain a synthetic artificial flavoring chemical, falsely representing these beverages as "Naturally Flavored." According to the complaint, Kroger has unjustly and illegally harmed the Plaintiff and the Class, by failing to disclose that the Products are artificially flavored, and either negligently, recklessly, intentionally, fraudulently, or otherwise illegally creating the impression that the Products were naturally flavored when they in fact were artificially flavored with a synthetic artificial flavoring chemical. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for the Products, had they known the Products contained artificial flavoring. The Kroger Co. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers meat, seafood, bakery, dairy, frozen, cleaning, kitchen, beverages, health, electronics, toys, vegetables, fruits, beauty, and household products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, Ohio 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael Houchin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Fax Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumeradvocates.com - and - David Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, PC 2028 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 228-7997 Facsimile: (617) 468-4865 Fax Email: Elliot.david@hotmail.com LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Walt Winston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02755 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm and Associates -- https://www.law-mba.com/ -- can help you create a plan to deal with your medical debt.[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 LEONARDO FURNITURE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leonardo Furniture, LTD. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leonardo Furniture, LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-10217 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Leonardo Furniture -- https://www.leonardofurniture.net/ -- offers competitive pricing for home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor 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 LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- YUGELY NUNEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 533898/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendant's website www.nugonutrition.com is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers in violation 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 Plaintiff tried to purchase a product on the Website, but the access barriers encountered on the Website would not allow her to purchase a product, i.e., the peanut butter chocolate-flavored Nut Butter bars, which Plaintiff was, and still is interested in purchasing for herself. As a result of the existence of these access barriers, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied full and equal access to Defendant's Website. These access barriers impede Plaintiffs ability to navigate the Website and complete a purchase. As a result of the access barriers, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied, on each of her visits, the opportunity to purchase and to obtain the full enjoyment of the peanut butter chocolate-flavored Nut Butter bars and the other snacks, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells thereon during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint. Lifestyle Evolution, Inc. is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates Nugonutrition.com. Through the Website, Defendant sells its products, such as protein bars and cookies.[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 LILITH GAMES: Class Action Suit Over Loot Boxes Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Lilith Games, represented by Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP and Intelink Law, has defeated a class action lawsuit over "loot boxes" in the popular video game, Rise of Kingdoms. In December 2019, a putative class action was filed in federal court against Lilith Games regarding its highly popular mobile game, Rise of Kingdoms. Lilith believed the case lacked merit and intended to vigorously defend against the lawsuit and its allegations. To that end, it hired Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP and Intelink Law Group, PC to represent it in the lawsuit. Fortunately, the case was dismissed at an early stage when the judge granted Lilith's motion to dismiss on August 29, 2022. The dismissal was not appealed. "The judge made the right call here," says Kate Hollist, an attorney who practices in video game and esports law and was part of Lilith's defense team in the case. "While there are plenty of bad actors in the mobile gaming space, and we support efforts to hold those companies accountable, the instant case was only one of buyer's remorse." About the Lawsuit Released in 2018, Rise of Kingdoms remains one of the top 100 roleplaying games on the Apple AppStore, where it enjoys a 4.5-star rating with over 100,000 reviews. The class action plaintiffs were former Rise of Kingdoms players who claimed that Lilith had duped them into spending thousands of dollars by introducing minigames that involved graphical depictions of game boards, virtual dice, and wheels. Although players had to use in-game resources, and not money, to play these minigame, Plaintiffs argued they would not have spent the money to acquire these in-game resources if they had better understood the chances of acquiring the more rare in-game prizes from the minigames. Hollist explains, "Keep in mind, players aren't paying to play minigames. They pay for in-game resources, some of which can then be spent playing minigames. But those same resources can be used for any number of other in-game activities, too." After reviewing the Complaint, as well as the parties' briefing on Lilith's motion to dismiss, the judge agreed with Lilith's argument that there was no plausible basis for any of the plaintiffs' claims. "Overall, the [Complaint] is long on speculation and short on plausible facts," the judge wrote. He went on to add, "Dropping hyperlinks to what is in effect gossip on the Internet is not the type of plausible allegation of fact that Rules 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) contemplate." "We're thrilled to deliver this result for our client," says Hollist. "Litigation in the mobile gaming space has been increasing in recent years, making the industry far more turbulent for gamers and gaming companies alike. Hopefully this ruling will help provide some guidance and peace of mind to companies operating within the scope of the law." Contacts: Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP (415) 955-1155 kr.law Intelink Law Group, PC (866) 786-4036 intelinklaw.com [GN] LYONS MAGNUS: Jennings Sues Over Failure to Ensure Products Safety ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joanne Jennings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, and TRU ASEPTICS, LLC, and STARBUCKS CORPORATION, and TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-02317-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought because of the Defendants' negligent failure to ensure the quality and safety of their products. The Defendants' negligent failure to ensure the safety of their products led to the recall of protein beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes, and other supplements (herein after "Recalled Lyons Magnus Products"). These Recalled Lyons Magnus Products were recalled due to bacterial contamination concerns. Specifically, the bacteria species Cronobacter Sakazakii (herein after "Bacteria") is believed to have contaminated the Recalled Lyons Magnus Products. Recalled Lyons Magnus Products include Oatly, Stumptown, Glucerna, Intelligentsia, Aloha, Kate Farms, and Premier Protein brand products. The Defendants knew or should have known that their Recalled Lyons Magnus Products had a risk of containing harmful Bacteria or were not sufficiently tested for the presence of Bacteria. During this time, the Defendants omitted any reference to the presence, or risk thereof, of harmful Bacteria., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased and consumed coffee drinks containing one of the Defendants' Recalled Lyons Magnus Products. Lyons Magnus and TRU Aseptics manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute, and vend protein shakes, protein powders, dairy alternatives, nutritional shakes, coffee style drinks, and other nutritional supplements throughout the United States, including in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Cox, Esq. COX LAW OFFICE 1606 N. Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Phone: 317.884.8550 Fax: 317.660.2453 Email: jcox@coxlaw.com MANYMOONS CO: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manymoons Co. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Manymoons Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-10137 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Manymoons Co. -- https://www.manymoons.com/ -- is a go-to for renting, buying, and gifting stylish, ethical and sustainable children's clothing sizes 0-6.[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 MARLEY LILLY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marley Lilly, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Marley Lilly, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10124 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marleylilly -- https://marleylilly.com/ -- is an e-commerce monogramming and personalized gift boutique.[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 METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Files Suit in D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MetroHealth System. The case is styled as Frank Savel, (Named Plaintiff 1) and Named Plaintiffs 2-46, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MetroHealth System, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG (D. Ohio, Nov. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Job Discrimination (Employment). The MetroHealth System -- https://www.metrohealth.org/ -- is a nationally ranked non-profit, public health care system located in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Troyer, Esq. Richard W. Arnold, Esq. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. 4580 Stephen Circle, Ste. 100 Canton, OH 44718 Phone: (330) 563-4149 Fax: (330) 526-6511 Email: jtroyer@asalawfirm.com rarnold@asalawfirm.com MIDCOUNTRY BANK: Bickel Sues Over Improper Charging of Bank Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN BICKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDCOUNTRY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-22-17430 (D. Minn., Nov. 28, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful business practices of assessing multiple $35 fees on an item. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant have been injured by Defendant's improper fee maximization practice. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class of individuals preliminarily defined below, brings claims for Defendant's breach of contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, like thousands of others, has fallen victim to the Defendant's fee revenue maximization scheme. MIDCOUNTRY BANK is a full-service bank. The Bank offers financial products and services such as savings accounts, personal and business loans, debit and credit cards, letter of credit, certificate of deposits, mortgages, equipment financing, cash management, and online banking. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Johnston, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com MIKE BLOOMBERG: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoena in Fontaine Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sabrina Kraus of the Supreme Court, New York County, grants the petition and motion to quash subpoena in the lawsuit entitled IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Plaintiff v. TIFFANY FONTAINE, NYGEL O'BANNON, WENDELL McCOY, GREGOIRE POIRIER, Defendant, Index No. 159158/2022 (N.Y. Sup.). Michael Bloomberg was a candidate for President of the United States in 2020. The Respondents are Massachusetts field organizers, who worked as employees of Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (Campaign), a Delaware non-profit corporation and the authorized campaign committee for Bloomberg's presidential campaign. The Respondents brought a putative class action pending in Massachusetts Superior Court in which they claim that the Campaign staff allegedly made an oral "promise" to other staffers that they would be employed through the November 2020 election, whether or not Bloomberg was the Democratic nominee. On July 1, 2021, the Massachusetts Superior Court dismissed Bloomberg from the Massachusetts Action for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Bloomberg, a resident of New York, was neither an officer of the Campaign, nor was engaged in "active entrepreneurial or managerial conduct" in Massachusetts. In July 2022, the Respondents emailed counsel for the Campaign to inquire if they would accept a notice of deposition for Bloomberg. Counsel for the Campaign informed Respondents that the Campaign does not control Mr. Bloomberg. A week later, the Respondents attempted to serve Bloomberg with a subpoena pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 3119 at a New York City residence, requesting Bloomberg appear for a deposition on July 29, 2022. The Respondents made two attempts to serve Bloomberg within 24 hours, one attempt in the evening of July 27, 2022, and the second again the next morning, at the same address. The Respondents made no further attempt at service. On Aug. 15, 2022, the Respondents moved in the Massachusetts Action to compel the Campaign to accept service of a deposition notice or subpoena for Bloomberg. On Aug. 19, 2022, the Superior Court ruled that, upon review, this motion is allowed. The Campaign appealed to the Single Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which affirmed the Superior Court's order and directed the Campaign to accept service of either a deposition notice or a subpoena. The order expressly noted that Bloomberg could file an "appropriate motion" to quash any subpoena or otherwise challenge the appropriateness of any attempted deposition under Mass. R. Civ. P. 45(b). On Oct. 3, 2022, the Respondents emailed to counsel for the Campaign and Bloomberg the First Subpoena. The First Subpoena states that Bloomberg's appearance is commanded on Oct. 12, 2022, nine days after it was emailed to counsel. On Oct. 7, 2022, the Petitioner filed a Petition and Order to Show in this Court to quash the First Subpoena and for a protective order to prevent his deposition (Index No. 158652/2022). On Oct. 19, 2022, the Respondents emailed to counsel for the Campaign and Bloomberg the Second Subpoena. The Second Subpoena states that Bloomberg's appearance is commanded on Nov. 10, 2022. On Oct. 20, 2022, the Respondents delivered a check to the law offices of counsel for the Petitioner that was for $15.00 as a "witness fee" along with a copy of the Second Subpoena. On Oct. 26, 2022, the Petitioner commenced this matter by the filing of a Petition, pursuant to CPLR Section 402, and an Order to Show Cause seeking an Order, pursuant to CPLR Sections 2304, 3101, 3103, and 3119 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, quashing the Second subpoena seeking Bloomberg's deposition on Nov. 10, 2022, in connection with an out-of-state action and issuing a protective order preventing Respondents from taking the deposition of Mr. Bloomberg. On Oct. 31, 2022, the Respondents filed opposition. On Nov. 9, 2022, the parties conferred the motion with the law clerk and agreed to withdraw the First Subpoena issued and the Petition and Order to Show Cause under index 158652/2022. The instant matter was submitted for disposition. In accordance with CPLR Section 308, a summons must be served either personally, or to a person of suitable age and discretion or, as a last resort, by conspicuous place service. The Second Subpoena, which is the subpoena at issue in this matter, was served on Bloomberg's campaign by email, which is not in accordance with the CPLR, Judge Kraus notes. The Respondents never sought the Court's permission for substituted service under CPLR Section 308(5). For that reason, Judge Kraus rules that the motion to quash the Second Subpoena for improper service is granted. The portion of the Petitioner's motion seeking a protective order preventing the Respondents from taking Bloomberg's deposition is denied, as the relief requested is more appropriately left to the Massachusetts court in which the action is pending, Judge Kraus holds. In certifying the decision to allow the Respondents to serve Bloomberg's campaign, the Massachusetts Appeals court stated, the Petitioner could "otherwise challenge the appropriateness of any attempted deposition under Mass. R. Civ. P. 45(b)." Wherefore, Judge Kraus ordered that: * the petition and motion to quash the subpoena is granted to the extent provided here; * within 20 days from entry of this order, the Petitioner will serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry on the Respondent, and on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); and * such service upon the Clerk will be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the Court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh). A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mhumr2p from Leagle.com. MONSANTO CO: City of Baltimore to Receive Portion of PCB Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Baltimore on Nov. 30 disclosed that will receive a portion of the $537.5 million settlement reached with chemical maker Monsanto and two associated companies as the result of a nationwide class action lawsuit over PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) contamination in municipal water systems. PCBs are industrial chemicals that were used in electrical equipment and a wide range of other products from the 1930s until the 1970s, when they were banned by federal law. The City filed its own lawsuit against Monsanto in 2019, alleging that PCBs have impacted municipal stormwater systems and other water systems. The City obtained a ruling rejecting Monsanto's attempt to dismiss the case in 2020. Cases filed against Monsanto, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC by municipalities nationwide were later condensed into a single class action lawsuit, with the City serving as one of thirteen class representatives. Judge Fernando Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, who signed off on the settlement, said, "the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class fairly." The settlement creates four separate funds to compensate the plaintiff municipalities for monitoring, cleaning up, and restoring the affected water systems. Over 2,500 municipal class members will participate in the settlement. Sara Gross, chief solicitor of the Baltimore City Law Department, said, "we are very pleased to have concluded this case on such favorable terms and to report to the citizens of Baltimore that those responsible for polluting our water systems will be funding their monitoring, cleanup, and restoration. Water is one of our most vital resources and we will be zealous in its protection and in seeking justice from those whose activities might jeopardize it." The four funds created by the settlement and the total monies allocated to them are: Monitoring Fund - $42,894,983 for monitoring for PCB contamination in waterways, stormwater systems, and other areas of contamination. TMDL Fund - $250,000,000 to compensate plaintiff cities for restitution and remediation of affected water systems. A TMDL, or Total Maximum Daily Load, is the state-designated allowable limit for a particular pollutant in water bodies. Sediments Fund - $137,500,000 to compensate plaintiff cities for addressing PCB contamination of sediments through stormwater and other runoff. Special Needs Fund - $107,105,016 to compensate the plaintiff municipalities for the effort and expense of bringing litigation. The settlement also creates a Special Master position to help oversee distribution of funds to members of the plaintiff class. In addition to the City of Baltimore, the class was represented by Baltimore County, Md.; Los Angeles County, Calif.; the Cities of San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, and Chula Vista, Calif.; Spokane and Tacoma, Wash.; and the City and Port of Portland, Ore. The City of Baltimore was represented in the litigation by Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Gordon, Wolf & Carney Chtd., and Baron & Budd PC, as well as the City Law Department. [GN] MOVADO GROUP: Cody Sues Over Unlawfully Wiretapped Conversations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOVADO GROUP, INC., a New York corporation, dba MOVADO.COM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00047956-CU-MT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act as a result of the Defendant who secretly wiretaps the private conversations on its Website without warning visitors or obtaining their consent. The Defendant secretly wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature at www.movado.com (the "Website"); and allows at least one third party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data for financial gain. The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping. As a result, the Defendant has violated the CIPA in numerous ways. The Defendant's wiretapping and eavesdropping are not incidental to the act of facilitating e-commerce, nor are they undertaken in the ordinary course of business. To the contrary, the Defendant's actions violate both industry norms and the legitimate expectations of consumers. To enable the wiretapping, Defendant has covertly embedded software code that functions as a device and contrivance into its website that automatically intercepts, records and creates transcripts of all conversations using the website chat feature. To enable the eavesdropping, the Defendant allows at least one independent third party vendor (on information and believe, Salesforce) to use a software device or contrivance to secretly intercept (during transmission and in real time), eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts of Defendant's chat communications with unsuspecting website visitors--even when such conversations are private and deeply personal. The data from those transcripts are then used for targeted marketing or other purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls the Website www.movado.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com NEW YORK, NY: Hall Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations -------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:22-cv-10193 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought to redress the Defendant's wrongs under the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper compensations. Thousands of employees are subject to the "1995-2001 Citywide Agreement." Under this agreement, and in other ways, the City denies its employees overtime compensation. First, the City fails to include nightshift differentials of 10% when determining employees' regular rates of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime, thereby artificially depressing employees' overtime rates of pay. Second, the City defers overtime wages earned by employees as compensatory time. Generally speaking, this practice is lawful; however, the City banks employees' overtime wages as compensatory time at rates less than one and one-half times employees' regular rates of pay, thereby violating federal wage-and-hour laws. Third, the City unlawfully caps overtime compensation, again banking employees' wages at a straight-time rate, rather than an overtime rate, for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they have met or exceeded the cap. In addition to the foregoing, the City also unlawfully treats compensable hours worked as "Non Compensable Hours," thereby further denying employees overtime compensation they are owed. Finally, the City routinely fails to pay employees on or before their regularly scheduled pay days, instead paying them anywhere from 19 to 33 days after their wages are due, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from May 21, 2018 through the present. The Defendant is a municipal corporation that controls and oversees, inter alia, the operations of mayoral agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Camilo M. Burr, Esq. Annabel R. Stanley, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-9330 Fax: 212-983-9331 Email: ahartzband@faruqilaw.com cburr@faruqilaw.com astanley@faruqilaw.com NEXA MORTGAGE: Diaz Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Damian Diaz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2022-00031816-CU-OE-NC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01895-BAS-DDL. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"); and the Private Attorney General Act of 2004. The Amended Complaint seeks the following forms of relief: an order certifying the class; injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs; disgorgement and restitution; statutory and civil penalties; damages for unpaid compensation, including interest and liquidated damages; an award of civil penalties pursuant to PAGA; and such further relief as the Court deems necessary.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David M. Greeley, Esq. James R. Thompson, Esq. GREELEY THOMPSON LLP 600 B Street, Suite 2150 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 658-0462 Email: dgreeley@greeleythompson.com - and - Arielle Stephenson, Esq. MITCHELL SANDLER LLC 1120 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 886-5267 Email: astephenson@mitchellsandler.com NOT YOUR MOTHER'S: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Dry Shampoo ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Stoogenke, writing for wsoctv.com, reports that a recent class action lawsuit says a dry shampoo sold in the U.S. had "dangerous" levels of benzene in it. A 27-page lawsuit says dry shampoo products by the Not Your Mother's brand, including Beach Babe, Clean Freek and Plump for Joy, expose consumers to "high levels of acutely toxic" benzene. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, benzene is a cancer-causing chemical and is unsafe in cosmetic products. The lawsuit says an independent laboratory found some Not Your Mother's shampoos had benzene levels reaching up to 158 parts per million (ppm), but the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says workers should wear protective equipment if exposed to benzene concentrations of 0.1 ppm or higher. According to the FDA, benzene has an "unacceptable toxicity" and if a company has to use the chemical it should limit it to 2 ppm. That said, there isn't any recall at present. The FDA told Action 9′s Jason Stoogenke: "The FDA is committed to ensuring marketed products Americans use are safe and effective. The FDA continues to monitor the issue of benzene in marketed products and is proactively working with companies, when appropriate, to recall products and encourage retailers to remove products from store shelves and online marketplaces when quality issues arise. The FDA is evaluating the root cause of benzene contamination and has alerted companies to the risk of benzene contamination in marketed products and reminded them of their obligation to ensure their products meet appropriate quality specifications. We continually gain additional knowledge about marketed products which allows us to identify and quickly address previously unknown risks to consumers. The FDA will communicate new information as it becomes available." Karen Lingerfelt told Stoogenke she loves Not Your Mother's dry shampoo. "It gives you the opportunity to be able to skip a day of washing your hair, which can usually be a time consuming thing for a woman. So you use the dry shampoo, throw it in there, mix it up a little bit, good to go," she said. But now she's worried about using it. "I've definitely made a decision to not continue using it, so I will be throwing away all those products. Just because you never know. I would rather err on the side of caution even if the FDA hasn't taken it off, even there is no recall. It's not worth it to me to save those few minutes every other day to use it and end up with potentially a life-threatening illness," she said. Stoogenke emailed the company that makes Not Your Mother's and it didn't respond in time for this report. [GN] NY FRESH MEX: Balk Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Balk and Anthony Gallway, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NY FRESH MEX, LLC, CENTER MEX, INC., PALM TREE VENTURES, INC., and MIDDLE COUNTRY MEX, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07253 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and other damages against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As policy and practice, the Defendants hired AGMs and misclassified them as exempt from FLSA and NYLL's overtime requirements, and the NYLL's spread of hours requirement. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs contend that they and other similarly situated AGMs consistently worked over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay for all hours worked over 40. And, AGMs regularly worked shifts, with a "spread" of over 10 hours without receiving an additional hour of pay at the minimum wage ("spread-of-hours"). As a result of misclassifying AGMs, the Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL, by failing to pay AGMs their proper wages and provide accurate wage statements. Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing to provide employees with wage notices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and their coworkers are current and former AGMs employed by the Defendants across Suffolk County, New York. NY Fresh Mex, LLC doing business as Cabo Fresh was and still is a domestic corporation authorized to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Jocelyn Small, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com jsmall@kesslermatura.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wells Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL WELLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY, PLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01134-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., Dec. 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Wells began working for Perrigo in August 1981, where he first worked as a lab technician and then as a data reviewer. As an hourly employee working the second shift, the Plaintiff also earned an hourly shift premium of $2.00 per hour. In addition to the base rate of pay, Perrigo incorporates routine and non-discretionary bonuses into its payment structure for hourly employees. However, Perrigo allegedly failed to take into consideration the hourly shift premium compensation and the non-discretionary bonuses when calculating its hourly employees' regular rates of pay and the resulting overtime rate premium. As such, Perrigo did not pay the proper overtime rate under the law, the suit claims. Perrigo is a leading provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions that enhance individual well-being by empowering consumers to proactively prevent or treat conditions that can be self-managed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com RB & DC SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB & DC SOLUTIONS, LLC; RAYDEL BALLESTER; and DANIELY CARVAJAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-62228-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Fernandez was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. RB & DC SOLUTIONS, LLC operates in the offices and clinics of chiropractors business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com REVELETTE ENT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Vickers Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KAITLYN VICKERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. REVELETTE ENTERPRISES, LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00967 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff spent more than 20% of her shifts performing non-tip-producing tasks while being paid at tipped hourly rate of less than $7.25. Some of these non-tip-producing tasks included rolling silverware, cleaning floors, windows, tables, chairs, and bar surfaces, setting up tables and chairs for customer service, brewing coffee and tea, and refilling condiments. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly shift their business expenses to their Tipped Employees by requiring them to pay for uniforms and equipment. For example, when Plaintiff Vickers worked for Defendants, she was required to purchase order pads and boxes of pens, both necessary to write down customer orders. The Plaintiff was never reimbursed by Defendants for these items. By requiring Tipped Employees to purchase uniforms and equipment for their jobs, Defendants caused them to receive less than the statutory minimum wage, says the suit. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are current and former servers and bartenders of Defendants at their Jonathan's Grille and The Rutledge restaurant locations, who earned less than $7.25 per hour and received customer tips. The Defendants include REVELETTE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN No. 3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–SPRING HILL, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE–CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE RESTAURANT, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE–FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE, LLC, MASON REVELETTE, and CURTIS REVELETTE.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com REX VENTURE: Nationwide Named as Plaintiff in Bell v. Matthias -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KENNETH D. BELL and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. IRENE MATTHIAS, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-69-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and Garnishees. According to the certificate of service, counsel for Bank of America, NA; JPMorgan Chase Bank; Citibank, NA; and Wells Fargo Bank, NA will receive notification of the filing of the Motion through CM/ECF and the Defendant will receive the Motion through United States mail. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf84b46 from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Named as Plaintiff in Orso v. J.P Louis --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. JEANNETTE PIERRE LOUIS, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-81-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and Garnishees. According to the certificate of service, counsel for Bank of America, NA, and Wells Fargo Bank will receive notification of the filing of the Motion through CM/ECF and the Defendant will receive the Motion through United States mail. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yz47axnz from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Bell v. Reid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KENNETH D. BELL and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. FRAN REID, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-45-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyaekx5 from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Britus ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. ROSELENE BRITUS, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-129-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff. Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and Garnishees. According to the certificate of service, counsel for Bank of America, NA; Fifth Third Bank; and Centennial Bank will receive notification of the filing of the Motion through CM/ECF and the Defendant will receive the Motion through United States mail. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6t6zhb from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Louis ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. SAINTANIA JACQUES LOUIS, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-133-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff. Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and Garnishees. According to the certificate of service, counsel for Bank of America, NA, and Fairwinds Credit Union will receive notification of the filing of the Motion through CM/ECF and the Defendant will receive the Motion through United States mail. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j6c5v26 from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Pepovic ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. FRANCO PEPOVIC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-103-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff. Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and Garnishees Bank of America, NA; Wells Fargo Bank, NA; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). Judge Irick points out that a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5uhj3u from Leagle.com. REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Porter ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. STEVEN PORTER, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-125-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment enforcement progresses. Nationwide asserts that the Motion was served on the Defendant and the Garnishees. According to the certificate of service, counsel for TD Bank, N.A., will receive notification of the filing of the Motion through CM/ECF and JPMorgan Chase Bank and the Defendant will receive the Motion through the United States Mail. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly served in accordance with Rule 25. The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court deems the Motion unopposed. As such, Judge Irick says there is no dispute that substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case. Judge Irick notes that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the original party), Judge Irick opines, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL 428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest, Judge Irick says; therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Judge Irick rules that Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff is granted; and the Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. as the named Plaintiff in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/34s9vwut from Leagle.com. SEPHORA USA: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beauty Packaging reports that a class-action complaint requesting a jury trial was recently filed in New York against Sephora USA Inc. (owned by LVMH) alleging that a number of cosmetic products tagged "Clean at Sephora" are loaded with synthetic ingredients, including some known to cause skin irritation or allergic reactions. More specifically, the case contends that "a significant percentage" of the items bearing the "Clean at Sephora" seal contain ingredients "inconsistent with how consumers understand" the term "clean." The lawsuit says that as a result of Sephora's "false and misleading representations," certain items are more costly than similar products that are "represented in a non-misleading way." Defining ‘Clean' Beauty According to the suit, consumers' understanding of the term "clean" is consistent with its dictionary definition, a word describing something as "free from impurities, or unnecessary and harmful components, and pure." In the context of cosmetics, "clean" indicates that a product is made without synthetic chemicals or potentially harmful ingredients, the case argues. The plaintiff alleges "a significant percentage of products with the 'Clean at Sephora' contain ingredients inconsistent with how consumers understand the term." For example, the suit points out, Sephora's Saie Mascara 101 contains "numerous synthetic ingredients, several of which have been reported to cause possible harms." Per the complaint, the mascara's predominant ingredient is a compound of glycerol and stearic acid that's manufactured via a chemical reaction and sourced as a bioproduct in biodiesel production. The plaintiff notes: "As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $26.00 for 0.31 oz (10g), 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." According to the suit, the plaintiff read and relied on the "Clean at Sephora" seal to believe the product's ingredients were not synthetic nor connected to causing physical harm and irritation. In her suit, the plaintiff noted she paid more for the product than she would have had she known the "clean" representations were false and misleading, or would not have purchased it. The plaintiff's representation is the Sheehan & Associates, PC, Great Neck, NY. The lawsuit looks to cover consumers in New York, Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina and Utah who bought any "Clean at Sephora" products during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] SILK 222 INC: Zabrodin Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Damian Zabrodin and Imran Gashimli, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiffs v. Silk 222, Inc., and Khurshed Kurbanov, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07064 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Zabrodin was employed as a server and general worker at Defendants' SILK Restaurant and Lounge in Brooklyn, New York from June 2022 to October 2022 while Plaintiff Gashimli was employed as a bartender and general worker at SILK Restaurant and Lounge from July 2022 until September 2022. Silk 222, Inc. owns, operates and/or controls SILK Restaurant & Lounge located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- RBR-TVBR reports that four individuals who are on the national Do-Not-Call Registry have filed a class action lawsuit against the nation's satellite radio company for receiving unwanted telemarketing calls -- for years. According to Bloomberg Law, Julie Campbell, Keith Sadauskas, Diana Bickford and Kerrie Mulholland received call after call from Sirius XM Radio, even though they were on the do-not-call registry. As such, they claim, Sirius XM phoned them without their consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state telemarketing laws. This occurred although they either put their numbers on the registry or told SiriusXM flat out that they don't want to receive the calls. It's the latest situation involving unwanted phone communication from Sirius XM. In August 2016, Sirius XM Radio agreed to a proposal that would have settled a $35 million class action over allegations that the company used an autodialing system to make sales calls to its trial users in an attempt to have them purchase a subscription. The settlement, which covers three cases around the country, called for the creation of a multimillion-dollar fund set up for the class members in that case. The $35 million fund allowed the class members to either take their portion of the fund or opt to receive three months free of Sirius XM Select service. The company also agreed to begin making changes to how they operate their telemarketing call centers; now, it appears those adjustments fell short. The TCPA monitors auto dialers and provides protection against text messages, calls, or faxes sent to your mobile phone or landline when made without prior written consent. An affected recipient of these unwanted communications could be entitled to monetary damages from $500 to $1,500 per each individual text, fax, or robocall received. Two years later, in March 2018, the D.C. Circuit issued a long-awaited decision involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that Scott Delacourt and Eva Reed of Wiley Rein LLP said at the time has "widespread implications for broadcasters and other media companies that rely on modern calling equipment (including text messaging) to reach their audiences." How did this decision, which resolves an appeal of the FCC's 2015 Omnibus TCPA Order with a unanimous panel but a split decision on the merits, impact a radio or TV station? "With respect to the three issues of interest to media companies, the Court vacated the FCC's definition of automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and its approach to reassigned numbers, while affirming the agency's approach to consumer revocation of consent to receive autodialed calls," they said. Their three quick takeaways from the Court's decision are as follows: 1. Definition of Autodialer. The FCC's 2015 Order had held that the TCPA's definition of ATDS broadly covers any calling system that had the "capacity" to make autodialed calls, which essentially swept in all smartphones. The Court reversed the FCC on this point, calling the FCC's approach "utterly unreasonable." The Court did not offer its own definition and instead remanded the issue to the FCC. However, the Court noted that the tricky definition of "capacity" becomes less important if one focuses on the fact that the TCPA prohibits "mak[ing] any call using any" ATDS. As the Court explained, whether or not equipment is only an ATDS when it has the "present" capacity to generate and store random and sequential number sequences, the TCPA's prohibition is limited to "making any calls" when ATDS capabilities are in place. If the ATDS capabilities are not present when a call is made, the call is not prohibited under the TCPA. Although no Petitioner raised this issue, Commissioner O'Rielly had raised it in dissent. The Court stated that "[t]he agency could choose to revisit this issue in a future rulemaking or declaratory order," strongly suggesting that is what the Court would like to see occur. Takeaway: This is a potentially a significant ruling. The Court signaled that it would be receptive to an FCC construction of the TCPA's autodialing prohibitions that potentially would exclude from TCPA liability calls made using a wide variety of technologies that the FCC's prior approach had included, including predictive dialers, preview dialers, or other dialing mechanisms involving human intervention. 2. Reassigned Numbers. The FCC's 2015 Order adopted a "one call safe harbor" for numbers that are reassigned to different individuals. Under that approach, parties could call a number for which they previously obtained consent that had later been reassigned to another person only once without obtaining consent from the new owner of the number, even if that one call did not provide the caller with knowledge that the number had been reassigned. The Court vacated this one call safe harbor and remanded the issue to the agency. Here again, the Court did not offer a solution, but suggested that the current Commission is already on the right track by requiring carriers to indicate when a number has been reassigned and to populate a reassigned number database with that information. Takeaway: This ruling is also potentially significant, in that it rejects the idea that calling parties should be deemed to know that they have called a reassigned number even if a single call does not provide them with actual notice that reassignment has occurred. The Court suggested that the FCC has identified a path forward on reassigned numbers with its proposal for a reassigned number database. It remains to be seen, however, whether carriers will be receptive to the Commission's reassigned number proposal and whether creating such database will be feasible. 3. Opt-out by Any Reasonable Means. The FCC's 2015 Order held that consumers could revoke their consent to receive autodialed calls "at any time" and "through any reasonable means." The Court affirmed the FCC's approach, holding that the FCC's ruling does not require callers to adopt opt-out tracking systems that impose "undue burdens" or would be "overly burdensome to implement." In the Court's view, callers can avoid liability by making available "clearly-defined and easy to use opt-out methods." And, callers are not subject to liability for any unconventional opt-out method a called party may choose. Takeaway: Although affirming the FCC, the Court's ruling should provide some protection to callers from consumers who choose "unconventional" methods of expressing their desire to opt-out of receiving autodialed calls where user-friendly means are available. "Overall, the D.C. Circuit's action clears a judicial cloud that has existed for some time over a number of TCPA issues and should enable the FCC to move forward on addressing a number of TCPA issues that have been raised in pending petitions for declaratory ruling," the Wiley Rein team note. "The Court's remand of the portions of the FCC's 2015 Order related to autodialers and reassigned numbers also paves the way for the current FCC to reach decisions on these issues that provide additional flexibility and clarity to parties that use modern calling equipment in their businesses." [GN] SONDER HOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Investors' Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Sonder Holdings Inc. ("Sonder" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SOND). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether Sonder and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On November 23, 2022, Sonder issued a press release announcing "an information technology security incident resulting in unauthorized access to one of the company's systems that included certain guest records." Sonder stated its belief "that guest records created prior to October 1, 2021 were involved in this incident," which involved access to guest information including Sonder.com usernames and passwords, guest transaction receipts, dates booked for stays at a Sonder property, and guests' full names, birth dates, phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses. On this news, Sonder's stock price fell $0.03 per share, or 1.74%, to close at $1.69 per share on November 23, 2022. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] ST. PAUL FIRE: PCC, ACE Fire and Century Settlement Wins Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. and PCC STRUCTURALS, INC., Plaintiffs v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:20-cv-1043-MO, 3:20-cv-1116-MO (D. Or.), Senior District Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, grants the Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4). On Sept. 16, 2022, trailing case Defendant ACE Fire, lead case Plaintiffs Precision Castparts Corp. and PCC Structurals, Inc. (collectively "PCC"), and Intervenor Century Indemnity Co. filed their Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4). On Sept. 30, 2022, trailing case Plaintiff the American Insurance Co. ("AIC") responded in opposition, to which ACE Fire, PCC, and Century replied on Oct. 14, 2022. On Aug. 1, 2022, PCC, ACE Fire, and Century reached a settlement agreement through good faith negotiations and mediation. PCC released ACE Fire and Century from any obligations with respect to two state class action cases in exchange for a $3 million payment under Century's insurance policies. In the settlement agreement, the parties stipulated that ACE Fire's four policies of $500,000 each had been exhausted, and Century's indemnity policy paid for PCC's ultimate net loss. On Aug. 3, 2022, the counsel for ACE Fire and Century gave written notice of the settlement to AIC and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. AIC opposes the Motion to Approve Settlement because it seeks contribution from ACE Fire. Upon reviewing the motion and subsequent briefing, Judge Mosman grants the Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4). He finds that ACE Fire, Century, and PCC have satisfied the statutory requirements for settlement approval under ORS 465.480(4). The parties to the settlement provided notice to other insurers and sought court approval after thirty days. Further, under ORS 465.480(4)(b), the parties to the settlement agreement are entitled to the rebuttable presumption that the agreement is a good-faith settlement. Judge Mosman is unconvinced by AIC's argument against the applicability of the good-faith presumption. AIC argues that the agreement is unfair because AIC has pending contribution claims against ACE Fire. However, the purpose of the statute is to facilitate settlement agreements, and the record does not rebut the presumption of good faith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4u92pzst from Leagle.com. TAI RITTICHAI: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tai Rittichai, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tai Rittichai, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07273 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tai Rittichai, Inc. doing business as TAI Jewelry -- https://www.taijewelry.com/ -- offers the best handcrafted womens jewelry online including womens earrings, womens necklaces, womens bracelets & womens rings online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com TARGET CORPORATION: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 221102675 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and alleging that Defendant has 'violated the PMWA by failing to pay wages for time associated with certain required activities arising on the Defendant's premises at the beginning and end of the workday. At the beginning of the workday, the Plaintiff and other class members generally are required to walk within the distribution center to their assigned work locations and "clock-in" for payroll purposes at time clocks located at or near the assigned work locations. The Plaintiff, in the absence of discovery, estimates that his mandatory pre-shift walking time generally took 5-7 minutes per day. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff for time associated with such mandatory pre shift walking. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee generally scheduled to work 40 hours per week. As such, his paid time combined with his unpaid pre-shift and post-shift walking time generally totaled over 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Chambersburg, Pennsylvania from early-February 2022 until late-March 2022. The Defendant is a retailer offering "everyday essentials and fashionable, differentiated merchandise at discounted prices" available for purchase "in stores or through our digital channels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 TARGET CORPORATION: Lomely Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zachary Lomely, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-22-102580 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00941. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains nine causes of action alleging: unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code and the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order; failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code; failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment in violation of California Labor Code; and failure to pay sick pay wages in violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Matthew Riley, Esq. Alberto Corona, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.699.2700 Fax: 619.699.2701 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com alberto.corona@us.dlapiper.com TGI FRIDAY'S: Judge Tentatively Allows Mislabeling Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge will tentatively allow a woman to proceed with a class action lawsuit concerning the mozzarella content of TGI Friday's-branded snacks, though the restaurant chain itself is no longer party to the litigation. In February 2021, attorney Thomas Zimmerman Jr. and others with Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against TGI Friday's Inc. and Phoenix-based Inventure Foods, alleging the shelf-stable bagged snack product, TGI Friday's Mozzarella Sticks, bears misleading labels because the sticks actually contain cheddar cheese. Represented by Christopher Sean Hennessy, of Cozen O'Connor, of Chicago, the companies fired back two months later, claiming named plaintiff Amy Joseph ordered the snacks on Amazon simply to file the lawsuit. Friday's and Inventure said Joseph filed at least eight class actions in Illinois state and federal courts over a decade, including three with representation from Zimmerman Law, which also sued over TGIF-brand potato skin snacks. After the companies removed the complaint to federal court, they filed a motion to dismiss. U.S. District Judge Robert Dow partially granted that motion in an opinion filed Nov. 28. Dow agreed with Joseph that TGI Friday's can't completely distance itself from Inventure solely due to its role as a licensor of its chain restaurant branding, noting she alleged both companies "had a wide variety of involvement in marketing, distributing and selling toe product." However, he agreed the complaint failed to state a claim against the restaurant in that it only ascribes to TGI Friday's a role as a trademark licensor. Several other courts have dismissed companies like General Mills and MillerCoors facing similar litigation, Dow explained, as well as TGIF on multiple occasions. With only Inventure remaining to face Joseph's consumer fraud allegations, Dow said the allegations are enough to survive dismissal, though he offered suggestions for improving Joseph's position as litigation proceeds. According to Dow, Inventure argued "the only reasonable interpretation of the product as a ‘shelf-stable, crunchy snack product' is that it bears no resemblance to the hot appetizer mozzarella cheese sticks and therefore, does not necessarily contain mozzarella cheese, pointing out the lack of representations on the product's packaging that the product contains mozzarella cheese or photos of mozzarella cheese." Dow agreed the label includes no explicit statement the snack "contains mozzarella cheese," but said the name "Mozzarella Stick Snacks," with an image of restaurant-ready sticks, means Joseph's inference about the cheese content is plausible. And although Inventure contended consumers should know mozzarella isn't shelf stable, Dow explained the conclusions of reasonable shoppers are questions of fact not appropriate for a dismissal motion. Inventure also argued Joseph shouldn't be allowed to use alleged violations of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to bolster her state-law fraud claims. While Dow declined to dismiss on those grounds, he encouraged Joseph to consider amending the complaint to allege a specific deceptive practice violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act because a reliance on the average consumer mindset likely can't presume broad awareness of nuanced U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. Dow likewise refused to dismiss an unjust enrichment claim. And although he expressed "doubts about whether (Joseph's) nationwide class allegations are manageable," Dow said the arguments to strike those allegations are premature and said he "needs additional factual development to determine whether any of the alleged differences in state law create a conflict for (Joseph) and potential class members or whether the class device may be manageable and otherwise appropriate to adjudicate one or more non-nationwide classes or subclasses." Dow further advised Joseph to clearly define any subclasses in a certification motion, including clearly establishing under which laws she seeks relief. He directed both parties to file a status report, with an updated discovery plan, by Dec. 19. [GN] THINK VACUUMS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Think Vacuums, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Think Vacuums, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10175 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Think Vacuums, Inc. -- https://www.thinkvacuums.com/ -- offer a variety of replacements parts, accessories, and attachments that are compatible with Signature central vacuum systems.[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 THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Scales Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thorley Industries, LLC. The case is styled as Juliana Scales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thorley Industries, LLC doing business as: 4moms, Case No. 4:22-cv-06300-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Thorley Industries, LLC doing business as 4moms is a company that makes technology-enabled baby gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Gary M Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - CHICAGO, IL 227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Terence Richard Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (855) 843-5442 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Christina S Davis COOLEY LLP 1333 2nd Street, Suite 400 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 883-6454 Email: cdavis@cooley.com - and - Kristine Anne Forderer COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Phone: (415) 693-2128 Fax: (415) 693-2222 Email: kforderer@cooley.com - and - Michelle Carrie Doolin COOLEY LLP - LIBRARY 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 550-6453 Email: mdoolin@cooley.com TORRID HOLDINGS: Timothy L. Miles Law Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight to protect shareholder rights for over 20 years, informs investors that a that a purchaser of Torrid Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CURV), who suffered losses in Torrid Holdings stock, filed a class action complaint against the Company for violations of the securities laws. The Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Torrid Holdings common stock in or traceable to Torrid Holding's July 1, 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Captioned Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., No. 22-cv-08375 (C.D. Cal.), the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit charges Torrid Holdings, certain of its top executives and directors, the IPO's underwriters, and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Allegations in the Torrid Holdings Class Action Lawsuit Torrid Holdings is a direct-to-consumer brand of women's plus-size apparel and intimates. Via its IPO, Torrid Holdings sold more than 12 million shares at $21 per share, generating over $265 million in gross offering proceeds. Notably, all of the shares sold were by Torrid Holdings insiders. Leading up to the IPO, Torrid Holdings claimed to be experiencing rapid sales growth and an impressive recovery following a temporary downturn in the face of the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March 2020. However, as the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's registration statement failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) in the first half of 2021, Torrid Holdings had experienced a temporary surge in demand as a result of changed consumer behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and government stimulus and that such ephemeral demand trends had dissipated and were not internally projected to continue following the IPO; (ii) Torrid Holdings was suffering from severe supply chain disruptions caused by the emergence of the Delta variant of COVID-19, which had first emerged in May 2021; (iii) Torrid Holdings was running materially below historical inventory levels as a result of supply chain disruptions; (iv) thus, Torrid Holdings did not have sufficient inventory to meet expected consumer demand for its fiscal third quarter of 2021; (v) consequently, late inventory arrival had materially impaired Torrid Holdings from effectively matching consumer buying trends, creating an undisclosed risk of increased markdowns and promotional activities necessary to sell undesirable inventory; (vi) Torrid Holdings' CFO, defendant George Wehlitz, planned to retire shortly after the IPO; and (vii) as a result, the IPO's registration statement's representations regarding Torrid Holding's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, financial results, and trajectory of Torrid Holdings at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis. At the time of the filing of the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit, the price of Torrid Holdings common stock remained significantly below the IPO price as investors continued to suffer losses in Torrid Holdings stock. If you purchased Torrid Holdings securities, have information, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click here for more information or contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to tmiles@timmileslaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and the number shares owned. About Timothy L. Miles Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentely selected by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM as a 2022 Top Ranked Lawyer and a 2022 Top Rated Litigator. Mr. Miles also maintains the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating for both legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019) and recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction (2019). Awards: Top Rated Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2019); AV(R)Preeminent(TM) Rating by Martindale-Hubble(R)(2014-2020); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation(TM) for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)2015); Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for (Avvo 2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored numerous publications advocating for shareholdings including most recently: Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities Firms Provides Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3, 2019). Contact: Timothy L. Miles, Esq. Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles 109 Summit Ridge Ct. Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (855-846-6529) Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com Website: www.classactionlawyertn.com Timothy L. Miles Law Offices Of Timothy L. Miles +1 855-846-6529 [GN] TRANS UNION LLC: Bryant Files Class Action Over FCRA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06609 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2022) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. TRANS UNION LLC operates as global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, marketing, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jvenditti@bursor.com TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with TuSimple's April 15, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (ii) between April 15, 2021 and October 31, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the January 9, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased TuSimple securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the TuSimple class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9655 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 9, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period and in connection with the IPO effected by means of the Registration Statement, Defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TuSimple was engaged in undisclosed related party transactions with Hydron, a company founded by Defendant Mo Chen; (2) TuSimple shared confidential information and/or proprietary technology with Hydron without Board approval or informing regulators or TuSimple shareholders; (3) TuSimple failed to disclose the Board's internal investigation, which commenced in July 2022, into TuSimple's ties to Hydron; (4) the aforementioned conduct enhanced the likelihood of regulatory scrutiny and investigatory action toward the Company; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the TuSimple class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9655 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TWITTER INC: Court Issues Final Judgment in Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, issued a Final Judgment and Order of dismissal with prejudice in the lawsuit entitled In re TWITTER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK) (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order of the Court, dated Aug. 5, 2022, on the application of the Settling Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated Jan. 5, 2022, and for approval of the Stipulation of Dismissal and Mutual Release of Claims between the Class Representatives and defendants Richard Costolo and Anthony Noto dated Jan. 5, 2022. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over all parties to the Litigation, including all members of the Class. Excluded from the Class is any Person, who timely and validly sought exclusion from the Class, as identified in Exhibit 1. These individuals are: 1. Frederick W. Taubert; 2. Leo P. Suski 3. Jonathan Sato; 4. Ronald P. Schmidt; 5. Steven Salevan; 6. Robert and Karen Naylor; 7. Zhi Zhao; 8. Gregory E. Ewald; 9. Quan Michael Ha; 10. Frank and Constance Barlamas; 11. Jinji and Helen Kobayashi; 12. Charles A. Leeds Ill; 13. Kurt Muscanell; 14. Adrian Jude Koss; 15. Denice I. Selvaggi; 16. Allan A. Viele; 17. Dee Ann Michelle Tuscher; 18. Jeremie Catagna; 19. Joshua Karp; and 20. Katie Wink. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation, and the Agreement. The Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation and the Agreement, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons, who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Litigation and all claims contained therein are dismissed with prejudice as to the Class Representatives, and the other Class Members and as against each and all of the Released Defendant Parties, as defined in each of the Stipulation and the Agreement. No Person will have any claim against the Class Representatives, Class Counsel, or the Claims Administrator, or any other Person designated by Class Counsel, based on determinations or distributions made substantially in accordance with the Stipulation and the Settlement contained therein, the Plan of Allocation, or further order(s) of the Court. Upon the Effective Date, the Class Representatives, and each of the Class Members will be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment will have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, discharged, and dismissed each and every one of the Released Claims against each and every one of the Released Defendant Parties, with prejudice on the merits. Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and the Agreement are not released. The Court finds that Twitter has satisfied its financial obligations under the Stipulation by paying or causing to be paid $809,500,000 to the Settlement Fund, in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 of the Stipulation. The Settling Parties and the Parties to the Agreement will bear their own costs and expenses except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation, the Agreement, or in this Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56ztradx from Leagle.com. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DANIEL S. DROSMAN -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- TOR GRONBORG -- torg@rgrdlaw.com -- ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART -- elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- LUCAS F. OLTS -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- J. MARCO JANOSKI GRAY -- mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com -- CHRISTOPHER R. KINNON -- ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com -- HEATHER G. SCHLESIER -- hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com -- in San Diego, California. MOTLEY RICE LLC, GREGG S. LEVIN -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- LANCE V. OLIVER -- loliver@motleyrice.com -- MEGHAN S.B. OLIVER -- moliver@motleyrice.com -- MAX N. GRUETZMACHER -- mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- MEREDITH B. WEATHERBY -- mweatherby@motleyrice.com -- in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Co-Class Counsel for the Class. ULTA SALON: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Lillian Brito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Case No. 159738354 (Fla. 13th Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic sales calls. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party." The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 422–7782 Facsimile: (813) 422–7783 Email: ben@theKRfirm.com UNITED FURNITURE: Alcantara Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINICK ALCANTARA; and MARIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; UFI CALIFORNIA, INC.; UFI TRANSPORTATION, LLC; LANE FURNITURE, INC.; LS LOGISTICS, INC.; STAGE CAPITAL, LLC.; and DAVID BELFORD, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02110 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 28, 2022) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiffs and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. manufactures and sells upholstery. The Company offers bonded leather and upholstery fabric recliners, reclining sofas and loveseats, sectionals, and sofa sleepers, as well as stationary sofas, loveseats, chairs, and ottomans. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gail C. Lin, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com UNITED STATES: Ireland Appeals CARES Suit Dismissal to Fed. Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL CREAGER IRELAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Rachel Creager Ireland, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01049, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged failure to administer the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). According to the complaint, in the wake of the unprecedented public health emergency and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Congress sought to ensure that workers affected by the pandemic would receive federal financial support. It initially did so through the CARES Act enacted on March 27, 2020. Nevertheless, between approximately June 12 and July 3, 2021, prior to the end date of the "pandemic unemployment assistance" or PUA program, recipients in 20 states had their benefits terminated prematurely, when their states chose to end their administration of the program, including Texas, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were affected by this unlawful discontinuation of benefits when the state of Texas terminated its administration of the PUA program on June 26, 2021. The Defendant allegedly did nothing to ensure that the affected recipients would receive benefits notwithstanding their states' decision to cease administering the program. On February 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 8, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell signed a report and recommendations concerning the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Lee Yeakel accepted and adopted the report and recommendation on September 6, 2022, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and final judgment was entered in the case. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on November 9, 2022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit captioned Ireland v. USA, Case No. 22-50980. However, that appellate case was dismissed on November 14, 2022, as erroneously docketed. On Nov. 18, 2022, the appellate case was filed anew captioned Creager Ireland v. United States, Case No. 23-1163, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance was due on December 2, 2022; -- Certificate of Interest was due on December 2, 2022; -- Docketing Statement is due on December 19, 2022; and -- Appellants' brief is due on January 17, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHEL CREAGER IRELAND, RAEVENE ADAMS, and DARCEAL TOBEY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 496-0500 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: Lisa A. Olson, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 E-mail: lisa.olson@usdoj.gov UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Vigdor Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CYNTHIA PUSEY VIGDOR, RONALD EASTER, ROBERT VIGDOR, VANESSA KROMBEEN, VASHISTA KOKKIRALA, RICHARD SMITHSON, JESSICA HUCK, and PROVIDENCE ANESTHEOSIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., and UMR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-517-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, fully affirms the magistrate judge's recommendation and grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The matter is before the Court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. In the M&R, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). The Defendants filed their objections within the time allowed. Cynthia Pusey Vigdor, Robert Vigdor, Vanessa Krombeen, Vashista Kokkirala, Jessica Huck, Richard Smithson, and Ronald Easter (together the "Patient Plaintiffs"), and Providence Anesthesiology Associates, P.A.(collectively "Plaintiffs"), initiated this action by filing of a "Class Action Complaint" (the "Complaint") on Aug. 16, 2021, in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case No. 2021 CVS 13028. The Complaint names as the defendants UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc., UMR, Inc., and UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (collectively "Defendants" or "UHC"). The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims for: (1) violation of the North Carolina Patient Protection Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. Section 58-3-200(d), as actionable under North Carolina's Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. Section 75-1.1; and (2) breaches of contract by refusing to reimburse the Patient Plaintiffs and other class members at a reasonable, fair rate. The Defendants assert that this action is removable to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the alleged claims arise under and are completely preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The Defendants further assert that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over completely preempted claims and that venue is appropriate here since the lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Soon after asserting federal jurisdiction and venue as appropriate, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. Their motion to dismiss contends that there is no personal jurisdiction over two UHC Defendants; that Plaintiff Providence should be compelled to arbitration; and that all claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand this case to state court. They contend that this matter only alleges state law claims and is not preempted by ERISA, and therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge issued an M&R granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The Defendants filed both factual and legal objections to the M&R. After careful review, the Court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the factual background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on these determinations, the Court will fully affirm the M&R and grant relief in accordance therewith. The Defendants make four objections to the M&R, including a claim that the M&R erred in its analysis of the complete preemption dispute. Judge Cogburn finds that the magistrate judge did not commit clear error in ruling that the Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted. Therefore, this objection is rejected. The Court overrules the Defendants' objections, and the Court will affirm the magistrate judge's M&R. Judge Cogburn, therefore, ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted, the Defendants' Objections are overruled, and the Memorandum and Recommendation is affirmed. In accordance with the Memorandum and Recommendation, this matter is remanded to state court. Finally, since the action is being remanded, the Motion to Dismiss will be terminated as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3he7cp from Leagle.com. UVALDE, TX: Mass Shooting Survivors File $27-Bil. Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Sutton, writing for CNN, reports that survivors of the fatal mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a $27 billion class action lawsuit against multiple law enforcement agencies in Texas, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 29 in federal court in Austin, names the city, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, the school district's police department, the Uvalde Police Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety and a number of persons who are members or former members of the agencies listed as defendants. The plaintiffs include parents and teachers and school staff members who were at the school May 24 when 19 students and two teachers were gunned down in adjoining classrooms just a few days before school was to let out for the summer. At least 17 others were wounded. A total of 376 law enforcement officers from multiple agencies responded to the massacre, the second deadliest shooting on a K-12 school in the United States. Officers waited 77 minutes after the shooter entered two adjoining classrooms before storming in and killing the gunman, an 18-year-old Uvalde resident. The lawsuit alleges the victims and survivors "sustained emotional and psychological damages as a result of Defendants' conduct and omissions" as a result of the shooting. According to the lawsuit, despite active shooter training, law enforcement "fundamentally strayed from conducting themselves in conformity with what they knew to be the well-established protocols and standards for responding to an active shooter." The lawsuit went on to reference the dysfunction and extended time period law enforcement took to respond to the shooting. "Instead of swiftly implementing an organized and concerted response to an active school shooter who had breached the otherwise ‘secured' school buildings at Robb Elementary school, the conduct of the three hundred and seventy-six (376) law enforcement officials who were on hand for the exhaustively torturous seventy-seven minutes of law enforcement indecision, dysfunction, and harm, fell exceedingly short of their duty bound standards," the suit claims. "There are no words to adequately express our deepest condolences to all the families who lost a loved one on May 24," Anne Marie Espinoza, a spokesperson for the school district, said in a statement to CNN. "Uvalde CISD cannot comment on or provide information about pending litigation. As a district, we focus on supporting our students and their families as we continue to navigate these unprecedented times." CNN has reached out to the city of Uvalde and the state public safety department for comment. The civil complaint is one of several around the massacre that seeks damages from a number of parties. One federal lawsuit filed earlier alleges nearly two dozen people and entities, including the gun manufacturer and store that provided the rifle used in the attack, were negligent and failed to protect a student who was killed. Other families filed a similar lawsuit in September. Separately, on Nov. 29, survivors and families of the victims filed another lawsuit seeking $6 billion in damages from firearm manufacturer Daniel Defense and Uvalde gun store Oasis Outback, alleging the shooter "turned to" the manufacturer, "who, due to a concerted and intentional marketing campaign specifically aimed at the demographic of young, isolated, troubled, and violent young men, successfully won over and wooed (him)." The lawsuit also alleges that "despite all the indicia that reasonably raised doubts as to (the gunman's) fitness to purchase," Oasis Outback, the Uvalde gun store that sold him guns and ammunition, allowed the purchase to happen, "effectively providing him with an inordinate amount of guns, accessories, and ammunition that should have foreseeably raised significant flags of concern." CNN has reached out to Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback for comment. Apart from the $6 billion in damages, the lawsuit seeks to stop Daniel Defense from "perpetuating its marketing campaign directed at young, underage youth wherein it irresponsibly dismisses and makes light of the dangerousness of their firearms." [GN] VAN CLEEF & ARPELS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Cleef & Arpels, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Van Cleef & Arpels, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07269 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Van Cleef & Arpels -- https://www.vancleefarpels.com/ -- is a French high-end luxury jewelry company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com VICTORIA: COVID-19 Lockdown Class Action Suit May Face Delay ------------------------------------------------------------ Marta Pascual Juanola, writing for The Age, reports that businesses hurt by Victoria's second COVID-19 lockdown may have to wait until 2025 to have their case heard in court if a bid by the state government to have proceedings put on hold succeeds in the Supreme Court. Lawyers representing the government want to halt the class action until a separate criminal case against the Department of Health over its hotel quarantine program is resolved. If the state's application is successful, the class action could be put on hold until as late as 2025, more than four years after the plaintiffs in the case filed their writ with the court. The application has already been delayed twice in recent weeks after the state's counsel in both court cases, Dr David Neal, reportedly experienced COVID-like symptoms and was unable to appear in court. The class action, brought on behalf of retail, hospitality, beauty and fitness businesses, claims the government's mishandling of the hotel quarantine program led to Victoria's second lengthy lockdown in 2020, devastating businesses and resulting in widespread job losses. The lead plaintiff in the case, Keilor Park restaurant 5 Districts NY, argues the government was negligent in its response to the pandemic and failed in its duty to take reasonable care to ensure that effective infection control measures were implemented in hotel quarantine. The state government previously failed on two separate occasions to have the case thrown out in court on the basis they held responsibility towards all Victorians not just businesses, the latest of which failed in August. Damien Scattini, a partner at the law firm Quinn Emanuel, who is leading the action on behalf of the plaintiff, said some business owners were "holding on by their fingernails waiting for an outcome" and further delays in the case would be brutal. "They've had two goes to kill the case, and now they are trying to put the case on ice for an interminable period. There's only one party in that room that wants it delayed and that's the state," Scattini told The Age. "We've got the state worried about its reputation, we've got tens of thousands of Victorians, taxpayers' businesses, who are needing a resolution on this case as soon as possible, and we intend to provide it to them." More than 1000 businesses have registered to take part in the class action, which is open to any traders that experienced a financial loss as a result of the restrictions. Victoria's second wave claimed more than 800 lives and caused four months of tough restrictions, including a nighttime curfew, a widespread commercial shut-down, and a ban on leaving home for anything but exercise and essentials. Scattini conceded aspects of the class action overlapped with the criminal case, but he said any potential conflict between both cases could be managed. Justice John Dixon said progress in the case had been "extremely slow" and advised the state's lawyers to prepare a defence ahead of the case's return to court in February. "I feel the need to keep this moving," he said. "Having read the submissions I think there's considerable traction in the proposition that this could be taken step by step rather than have it stayed." He will make a formal decision on the government's application to stay the class action when the case returns to court. The Department of Health is facing tens of millions of dollars in fines if found guilty of 58 breaches of occupational health and safety laws in the criminal case being heard in the Magistrates Court. WorkSafe alleges the department failed to provide a safe workplace for its employees and failed to ensure people were not exposed to risks to health and safety in quarantine hotels. A five-week committal hearing is under way for magistrate Simon Zebrowski to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction on the charges.[GN] WALT DISNEY: YouTube TV Subscribers Sue Over Anticompetitive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges certain "anticompetitive agreements" between The Walt Disney Company and its direct competitors in the live TV streaming market have caused subscriptions to YouTube TV and other services to nearly double. The 85-page antitrust suit was filed by subscribers to YouTube TV, the largest live TV streaming service, who allege that Disney's control over Hulu + Live TV, the second largest live TV streaming service, and ESPN, which costs live streaming providers the most to carry on their platforms, has allowed the House of Mouse to essentially control prices across the market through horizontal, anticompetitive carriage agreements for ESPN and related channels. More specifically, the suit says Disney's carriage agreements with its live TV streaming competitors contain two terms that provide the defendant with "power over the entire market." First, the agreements contain language that requires the base or lowest-priced bundles offered by live TV streaming providers to include ESPN, the case states. Second, the agreements include "most favored nation" clauses that apply upward price pressure on "every rival [live TV streaming product]," the complaint alleges. Per the case, a most favored nation clause essentially requires Disney to offer ESPN at the same price for all similar-sized providers. "Together, these carriage agreement mandates -- which now cover all of Disney's leading competitors in the [live TV streaming market] -- allow Disney to use ESPN and Hulu to set a price floor in the [market] and to inflate prices marketwide by raising the prices of its own products," the lawsuit contends. "And this is exactly what Disney has done in the past three years, since it took operational control of Hulu." Since Disney acquired and took control over Hulu in May 2019, prices across the live TV streaming market, including for YouTube TV, have doubled, a marketwide price inflation led by Disney's own price hikes for Hulu + Live TV, the filing says. The price increases have "directly tracked" Disney's negotiations of new carriage agreements with each of its live TV streaming service competitors over the same time period, the suit adds. Per the complaint, YouTube TV owner Google's carriage agreements with Disney have "resulted in a near-100% price increase" of the platform's base package, from $35 to $65. During "hard-nosed carriage agreement renegotiations" in late 2021, YouTube TV said publicly that without its agreement with Disney, it could provide an ESPN-less base plan at $15 per month, the case relays. According to the case, Disney's anticompetitive carriage agreements harm competition in the live TV streaming market by setting a price floor that prevents competition on price, providing Disney a cost input into competitors' products, making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market, and reducing consumer choice by forcing base packages on consumers that necessarily include ESPN. The net result of Disney's conduct, the suit alleges, is that prices have consistently gone up in the live TV streaming market, such that they now "approach[] traditional cable and satellite TV prices." "This not only allows Disney to prevent cord-cutting, it allows it to continue to extract high affiliate fees from both [virtual multichannel video programming distributors] and [traditional cable and satellite TV services], which were rapidly dropping prior to the commencement of Disney's anticompetitive conduct," the filing contends. The lawsuit looks to cover all persons, business associations, entities and corporations who paid for a YouTube TV monthly subscription from April 1, 2019 through the present. [GN] WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ictech-Bendeck Has Established General Causation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, ELIAS JORGE "GEORGE" ICTECH-BENDECK, Plaintiff v. WASTE CONNECTIONS SECTION: "E" (5) BAYOU, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Related Case FREDERICK ADDISON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. LOUISIANA REGIONAL SECTION: "E" (5). LANDFILL COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. Applies to: All Cases, Civil Action No. 18-7889, No. c/w 18-8071., 18-8218, 18-9312, Civil Action No. 19-11133, No. c/w 19-1451 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana finds that the Plaintiffs have established general causation for their damage claims. The case concerns the operation of the Jefferson Parish Landfill, and the resulting odors the Plaintiffs allege were emitted from the Landfill causing damage from July 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2019 (the "relevant time period"). Ictech-Bendeck v. Waste Connections Bayou, Inc. is a consolidation of several proposed class actions. Elias Jorge "George" Ictech-Bendeck; Savannah Thompson; Nicole M. Landry-Boudreaux; Larry Bernard, Sr.; and Mona Bernard, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, (the "Ictech-Bendeck Plaintiffs") seek damages for violations of the obligations of neighborhood under Louisiana Civil Code articles 667-669. Addison v. Louisiana Regional Landfill Co. is a consolidation of two mass actions containing over 500 individual Plaintiffs (the "Addison Plaintiffs"). The Addison Plaintiffs seek damages for negligence under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 2315.1, and 2316 as well as for violations of the obligations of neighborhood under Louisiana Civil Code articles 667-669. Both the Ictech-Bendeck Plaintiffs and the Addison Plaintiffs name as Defendants Jefferson Parish, which owns and contracts with others to operate the Landfill; Aptim Corporation, which managed the gas and leachate collection systems of the Landfill from July 2017 to May 2019; and three entities that operated the Landfill from May 2013 to December 2020: Louisiana Regional Landfill Co. (formerly known as IESI LA Landfill Corp.); Waste Connections Bayou, Inc. (formerly known as Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc.); and Waste Connections US, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). The parties agree resolution of the issue of "general causation" will help narrow the focus of the case and the issues at stake. They consented to the Court determining the issue of general causation. Before trial, the Court ruled on Daubert motions seeking to exclude expert testimony based on qualifications or methodology. The Court prohibited one of the Plaintiff's experts, Dr. Susan Schiffman, from testifying as to the ability of odors to produce certain physiological effects due to her lack of qualifications. The Defendants listed as witnesses several experts -- Dr. Karen Vetrano, Dr. John Kind, and Dr. Pamela Dalton -- who were offered to rebut the testimony of Dr. Schiffman. The Court excluded as irrelevant any testimony meant to rebut Dr. Schiffman on areas on which she was precluded from testifying. It also excluded testimony by Dr. Vetrano, Dr. Kind, and Dr. Dalton to the extent it is cumulative. The Court denied the remaining Daubert motions, which largely attacked the experts' methodology, as going to the weight of the evidence. The Court held a trial on general causation, which took place on Jan. 31, Feb. 1-4, and Feb. 22-25, 2022. At trial, it heard live testimony from Joseph Buller, Jr.; Brian DeJean; Jose Sananes; Dr. Jaana Pietari; James Lape; Dr. Susan Schiffman; Dr. Pamela Dalton; Dr. John Kind; Dr. Paolo Zannetti; Matthew Stutz; Dr. Tarek Abichou; Jeffrey Marshall; and Dr. Mark Yocke. The parties submitted excerpts of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Waste Connections US, Inc., through corporate representative Brett O'Conner, and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Jefferson Parish, through its representative Michael Lockwood. The Court admitted into evidence several Exhibits. After trial, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants submitted post-trial briefs, and the Plaintiffs submitted a reply brief. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the depositions, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, Judge Morgan now issues these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent any findings of fact may be construed as conclusions of law, the Court adopts them as such. To the extent any conclusions of law may be construed as findings of fact, the Court adopts them as such. In all seven versions of the parties' Case Management Order, "general causation" is defined as "the determination of whether odors and gases were being emitted by the Jefferson Parish Landfill during the relevant time period and whether any such odors and gases were capable of producing the injuries claimed by any one or more of the Plaintiffs in this case." This definition incorporates three elements: 1) whether odors and gases were emitted by the Landfill, 2) whether the gases and odors were emitted during the relevant time period, and 3) whether the emitted odors and gases were capable of producing the injuries claimed by any one or more of the Plaintiffs. Ultimately, Judge Morgan finds that the Plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that odors and gases emitted by the Jefferson Parish Landfill during the relevant time period were capable of causing headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of life, and loss of enjoyment or use of property in the general population. Hence, they have established general causation for the damage claims made in the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law is available at https://tinyurl.com/47n9nb67 from Leagle.com. WILLIAM MARKETING: Mboh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Marketing, LLC. The case is styled as Corie Mboh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. William Marketing, LLC doing business as: Onranker, Case No. 1:22-cv-05719 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. William Marketing, LLC doing business as OnRanker -- https://www.onranker.com/ -- is a full-service marketing agency that can help your business grow.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine P. Sons, Esq. James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-0575 Email: cpsons@bormeslaw.com bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net The Defendant is represented by: Matthew F Singer, Esq. BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP 200 W. Madison St., Ste 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 629-7414 Email: matthew.singer@bfkn.com WTA TOUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Young Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. WTA TOUR, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10184 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.wtatennis.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, during Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on October 3, 2022, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff an experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to obtain information about the Defendant's schedule of matches, roster of participants, statistics, news, purchasing tickets for tennis events, viewing videos of past tennis events, website terms and conditions, and privacy, says the suit. The Plaintiff allegedly encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons that include: -- Lack of Alternative Text ("alt-text"), or a text equivalent. As a result, Defendant's visuallyimpaired customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse, or make any purchases; -- Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. They can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen-reader users; -- Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and -- Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information contained in PDFs. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and Segregation, the Plaintiff claims. WTA Tour operates the WTA entertainment venue across the United States. This entertainment venue constitutes a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita Jeffrey M. Gottlieb GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ZYNGA INC: Ferrando May File Oversized Bid for Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Oversize Brief Instanter filed in the lawsuit captioned TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-214-RSL (W.D. Wash.). According to the Order, the Plaintiffs may file up to a 26-page Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yycmx3k from Leagle.com. Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- Brandt Silver-Korn -- bsilverkorn@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, in San Francisco, California. Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Alexander G. Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- Amy B. Hausmann -- abhausmann@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, in Chicago, Illinois. Cecily C. Jordan -- cjordan@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, the Plaintiffs' Attorneys and proposed Class Counsel. [*] Number of Securities Class Actions in Australia Up in 2022 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sally Patten, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that the number of class actions lodged by aggrieved investors has risen in the past 12 months, dispelling fears that the continuous disclosure laws introduced by the Morrison government in August 2021 would make it harder for disgruntled shareholders to sue directors. Analysis by law firm King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) shows that 10 securities class actions were launched in 2022, up from eight in 2021. Fifteen were lodged in 2020 and 11 in 2019. It is early days since the changes to the rules, but the trend will weaken Labor's argument that the laws may need to be wound back because they make it harder for shareholders to take legal action against directors. Global insurance broker Marsh said that while the cost of directors' and officers' liability insurance for major companies had declined from its highs over the past 12 months, the fall was due to an increase in capacity and the absence of "opportunistic pricing", rather than a change in the disclosure rules. Craig Claughton, head of financial and professional insurance at Marsh, said the changes to continuous disclosure laws were not significant enough to warrant insurers reducing premiums. "I hope Labor takes into account the impact on class action numbers and on insurance premiums when it considers its next move [on the disclosure rules]," Mr Claughton said. The previous Coalition government amended the Corporations Act so that companies and directors could only be sued for breaching disclosure laws when they acted with "knowledge, recklessness or negligence". The change was first made in May 2020 after company directors said they faced heightened risk of shareholder class actions at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. It was initially slated to last for six months, but was made permanent in August 2021. A statutory review is due within six months of the two-year anniversary of the bill. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has said Labor would "carefully consider" the findings of a review in deciding "what action was needed to address any deficiencies with these vital protections for Australian shareholders". Moira Saville, a partner at KWM, said the firm's analysis suggested the rules introduced last year had not born out critics' fears that shareholders would be disadvantaged. "In terms of securities class actions, I don't think it is changing the dial. It's probably too early to say that there's really any trend, but we certainly haven't seen a drop in securities class actions being filed," Ms Saville said. "I don't think it's made it harder for or more difficult for there to be class actions necessarily." Directors' obligations unchanged "Since the permanent reforms took effect in August last year, there has not been a reduction in number of claims," said Mark Rigotti, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. "There's been no change to what companies need to disclose by when, and boards and directors rightly take their obligations very seriously. The AICD would like to see the amendments retained, and we look forward to participating in next year's evidence-based statutory review." Mr Claughton said he had expected the 2021 amendment to the continuous disclosure laws to lead to more cases reaching court, rather than being settled beforehand because directors may feel they are better able to defend class actions, but said this had not happened yet. "I think that will play out, but I think it is going to take some time," Mr Claughton said. Only four securities class actions have reached court in Australian corporate history. Ms Saville pointed to a shift in the nature of shareholder class actions lodged "in more recent times", away from lawsuits related to the disclosure of financial information, towards those that relate to the disclosure of non-financial risks. [GN] [*] UK Class Action Over COVID, Strikes May Extend to Law Schools ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monidipa Fouzder, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports that a multi-million-pound group legal action against universities over Covid and strike disruption could extend to law schools, the Gazette has learned - as the number of law students joining the claim approaches 3,000. More than 30,000 students across England and Wales have joined the 'Student Group Claim' seeking compensation from universities over disruption caused by staff strikes and the pandemic. The legal challenge is being led by law firms Asserson and Harcus Parker. Letters before claim have been sent to 18 universities. In February, the High Court will decide whether to issue a group litigation order in relation to a claim against University College London. Ryan Dunleavy, a partner at Harcus Parker, told the Gazette that just under 3,000 law students have joined the group claim so far. 'Our most advanced cases on behalf of law students are against universities, largely because most of our clients have studied at those larger institutions, but increasing numbers of students and former students from law schools are approaching us via the Student Group Claim website,' he said. 'They are also asking us to bring cases on their behalf for loss of in-person teaching and access to facilities due to the pandemic. Although we have not formally engaged with the law schools yet in those cases, we are actively investigating those cases with a view to taking them forward.' According to the Student Group Claim website, the litigation is being conducted on a 'no win, no fee' basis. Students will keep at least 65% of any compensation, with the remainder covering legal fees. Should a group claim fail, students will not have to pay. The website states that suitable insurance or other cover will be in place to protect them should the university seek legal costs. How much compensation students receive will depend on what courses they are on, university fees and how their experience was affected by strikes and Covid, but the firms estimate that students will be able to claim on average £5,000 or more. The claim is being supported by litigation funding and insurance worth GBP13.5 million. [GN] [*] Zantac Manufacturers Avert Cancer Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Medtrust reports that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court's ruling that cleared Zantac manufacturers of liability against a consolidated third-party class complaint (CTPCC). The complaint was filed by a Florida-based union. The Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 630 in West Palm Beach alleged that Zantac (ranitidine) contained a carcinogenic substance, and as a result, the heartburn drug's manufacturers should be forced to pay monetary damages. The Nov. 7 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit found that while some of the Union's claims had standing, its complaint as a whole amounted to a "shotgun pleading," meaning that the union's claims were unorganized and lacked clarity, Florida Record reported. The federal district court initially ruled the Union's claim a shotgun pleading. But the Union did not challenge that ruling when it filed its initial brief for appeal. "Plumbers [Union 630] was put on notice, before it filed its initial brief, that a failure to challenge the district court's shotgun pleading ruling could be problematic," read the 11th Circuit Court's opinion. "By not contesting that ruling, Plumbers has given us no choice but to affirm the dismissal of the CTPPCC." There are fewer than 3,000 federal Zantac cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL). However, more than 50,000 people have filed Zantac cancer claims in order to beat the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs and claimants allege that they developed cancer after using Zantac for many years. The FDA pulled Zantac and all other ranitidine products from the market on April 1, 2020 after lab testing revealed that the drug contained unusually high levels of a carcinogenic byproduct, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are usually filed by individual plaintiffs or a class of plaintiffs. Third-party entities that file lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies do not allege that the drug makers' products are unsafe. Instead, they seek monetary damages based on the fact that the drug makers sought profits while consumers derived no medical benefit from the drugs. In addition to unions, other examples of third-party plaintiffs include insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Such claims result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley), a former subsidiary. Although Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos containing components provided by other companies. "Hercules LLC (Hercules) (formerly Hercules Incorporated), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, is also subject to liabilities from asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits involving claims which typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. "Ashland and Hercules are also defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by Ashland or Hercules." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3uttoU0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 211 PI Cases at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products they sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, there were 211 and 151 individual cases pending against the Company, respectively. During the three months ended September 30, 2022, 38 new cases were filed and 5 cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved. The value of the settlements was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2022. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. "We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to date. Any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3VF5lwO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor does it expect the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3Y2wA6A ********* 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 ***