/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221229.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 254
Headlines
326 MOBILE: Calderon Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
450 NORTH: Collado Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
ACCEPTANCE NOW: Seeks More Time for Briefing Class Status Bid
AIRGAS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALG VACATIONS: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
APPLE INC: Parties Seek Modification of Class Cert Briefing Sched
APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Schedule Deadlines
AYAME HIBACHI: Fails to Provide Chefs Proper Wages, Lin Says
BENJAMIN DICHTER: Fails to Get Funds for Class Action Defense
BHP BILLITON: Seeks More Time for Class Certification Response
BILOXI HMA: Case Management Order Entered in Henley Class Suit
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Class Settlement in Roldan Suit Gets Final Nod
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
BOWLING GREEN: Ohio App. Reverses Class Certification in Keba Suit
BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set February 27
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Adding New Defendant May Delay COVID Class Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Bid for Leave to Serve Discovery Nixed
CALISTOGA COFFEE: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CAPITAL HOME: Faces Class Action Over Unlawfully Recorded Calls
CG CONSULTING: Ousley Bid to Certify Rule 23 Class Nixed
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 27, 2023
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Parties Seek to Stay All Proceedings
COLTER ENERGY: Case Management Order Entered in Joyce Class Suit
CORSAIR GAMING: Court Narrows Claims in McKinney Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Medina Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over "Flouride Free" Toothpaste
D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES: Recio Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
D.R. HORTON: Hundreds More Homeowners May Join Class Action
DIAMONDBACK E&P: Ct. Modifies Scheduling Order in CCHF Suit
ERIC SCHMITT: Benson Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
EVONIK CORP: Faces $1.4-Bil. Class Suit Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plan
FRANK CALDERONI: BLETLIPF Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
FRED MEYER STORES: Sapphire Suit Removed to N.D. California
FRONTRUNNERS INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FTX TRADING: Footballer Tom Brady Named Defendant in Fraud Suit
GAIA INC: Armbruster Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
GARDNER TRUCKING: Order on Stay of Discovery & Schedule Entered
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Seeks More Time To Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid
GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Certification of Privacy Class Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Parties Must Submit Proposed Redactions to Class Cert.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Maranda Sues Over Defective Vehicle Headlights
IKEA US: Meyers' Bid to Certify Class Denied; Dukich Suit Tossed
INFINITY PAINTING: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
INTRUSION INC: Class Settlement Deal in Celeste Gets Final Nod
INVESTMENTS 41: Popova Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 13
IRONWORKS COLLECTIVE: Gallard Sues Over Cannabis Products' False Ad
JAKO ENTERPRISES: Gamble Sues to Recover Underpayment
JET SET KID: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Brinson Seeks Class Certification
KASPERSKY LAB: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL: Spencer Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Brake Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Hoos Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Priego Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
KHAYLIE HAZEL: Court Limits Discovery in TCPA Class Action
L BRANDS: Agreed to Settle 401(k) Class Action for $2.75 Million
LA-Z-BOY: Carroll Sues Over Reporting Details of Visitors' Identity
LARA INC: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LAUSON DRILLING: Davidson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEARNING POST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEFT LEAD LIQUORS: Boyll Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
LENOX CORPORATION: Esparza Files Suit in N.D. California
LI HAI LLC: Wu Suit Seeks to Recover Helpers' Unpaid Wages
LYFT INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
M.D.C. DIAMONDS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
M.U. CONSULTANTS: Donat Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
MAINE OXY: $6.3MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
MARINE CREDIT: Monroe Seeks to Certify Mortgage Loan Rep Class
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Bustamante Suit Removed to N.D. California
MASTERCARD INC: Hogan Lovells Discusses UK Class Suit Certification
MATTERPORT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lynch Class Suit
MDL 2918: EUPs Seek Consideration Whether to Seal Material
MENZIES AVIATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Amaya Class Suit
MERCY HEALTH: Dames Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
MHM HEALTH: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Lewis Suit
NAR: Bid to Exclude Schulman's Opinion Testimony Tossed
NIANTIC INC: Mobile App Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says
NOMI HEALTH: Brighthaupt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
NULIFE MED LLC: Pires Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER: Jacks Files Suit in S.D. Texas
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks OK of Notification to Collective
OMONIA CAFE: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PANDORA JEWELRY: Gielow Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PLUSH APPEAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POINT QUEST: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Ondo Says
REALPAGE INC: Boelens Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
RECOVERY REMEDIES: Douglas Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
REGIONAL EXPRESS: Dixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Zirus Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Facchini Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
SABER HEALTHCARE: Brelo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California
SILLY AXE CAFE: Gallusser Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Bid to Strike Behrens Declaration Tossed
SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE: Garcia Files Suit in N.D. California
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION: Goodman Sues Over Unlawful Monopolies
TESLA INC: Faces Urban Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handles
TRADER JOE'S: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action Suit
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Shareholders Want Securities Class Suit Revived
WARNER BROS: Two Ohio Pension Systems to Lead Class Action Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Must Face Securities Class Action in Washington
*********
326 MOBILE: Calderon Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA CALDERON, v. 326
MOBILE OF NJ INCORPORATED, and ISAAC MARASHLI, Case No.
1:22-cv-10401-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams
entered an order that the Calderon action is referred to Magistrate
Judge Parker for the following purpose:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement);
-- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a
Report and Recommendation) Particular Motion; and
-- Certification motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (if any).
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VoJZmN at no extra charge.[CC]
450 NORTH: Collado Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCTAVIO COLLADO, v. 450
NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, RJ RIVER, LLC AND
ROMAN JONES, Case No. 2:22-cv-01539-CJB-DMD (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying Count I of the Amended Complaint
as a collective action comprised of:
"all captains, servers, and/or bussers who worked for the
Defendants from September 23, 2019, to the present at Kiki
on the River, who received tips from the "tip pool"
controlled by Defendants, and to award the following
additional relief;
2. appointing Mr. Collado as the Representative of the Class
with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
conferences mediations for the Class;
3. appointing Brian H. Pollock, Esq. of the FairLaw Firm as
counsel for the Class;
4. permitting Mr. Collado to send notice by email, text
message, and by U.S. Mail to each member of the Putative
Class with a proposed opt-in / Consent to Join form;
5. requiring the Defendants to post the Notice in a
conspicuous place in Defendants’ offices in either an
employee break room, next to the Minimum Wage Notice
posters located in Defendants’ places of business, or
other conspicuous location routinely visited by
Defendants’ tipped employees at Kiki on the River (and
declare doing this);
6. requiring the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice
and the proposed opt-in / Consent to Join form in the next
paycheck/paystub provided to all current captains,
servers, assistants, and/or bussers (and provide Mr.
Collado with a Declaration attesting to completion); and
7. permitting Mr. Collado to send out a letter/email/text
message reminding members of the Putative Class of their
right to join in this lawsuit and the deadline for same.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jmGBf2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
ACCEPTANCE NOW: Seeks More Time for Briefing Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON MCBURNIE and APRIL
SPRUELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the
time for briefing the motion for class certification by 14 days,
and to continue the hearing date by 14 days.
RAC respectfully suggests the following extended briefing
schedule:
1. RAC's opposition to the motion for class certification due
on or before January 11, 2023.
2. The Plaintiffs Shannon McBurnie's and April Spruell's
reply to the motion for class certification due on or
before January 18, 2023.
3. The hearing be continued to February 2, 2023 at 10:00
a.m., or such other time as the Court may prefer.
Under the current briefing schedule, RAC's opposition is due
December 28, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply is due January 4, 2023.
Counsel for RAC will be traveling for the Christmas holiday, and
will not have sufficient time to oppose the 24-page motion for
class certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCuT7p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
Caitlin Blanche, Esq.
Amy Wong, Esq.
Ashley Song, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 882-8200
Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com
caitlin.blanche@klgates.com
amy.wong@klgates.com
ashley.song@klgates.com
AIRGAS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airgas, Inc. The case
is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Airgas, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07766
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Airgas -- https://www.airgas.com/ -- an Air Liquide company, is an
American supplier of industrial, medical and specialty gases, as
well as hardgoods and related products; one of the largest U.S.
suppliers of safety products; and a leading U.S. supplier of
ammonia products and process chemicals.[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
ALG VACATIONS: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRIGUEZ v. ALG VACATIONS
CORP., Case No. 6:22-cv-02337 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff
and defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Apple Leisure Group (ALG) is an American travel and hospitality
conglomerate focused on packaged travel and resort/brand management
in Mexico.[CC]
APPLE INC: Parties Seek Modification of Class Cert Briefing Sched
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order modifying briefing and hearing schedule on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
Event Current Date New Date
Second Class Jan. 13, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023
Certification
Opposition and
Supporting Expert
Evidence
Second Class Mar. 3, 2023 Apr. 28, 2023
Certification Reply
and Rebuttal Evidence
Hearing on Second Class Apr. 4, 2023 June 20, 2023
at Certification Motion
Deadline to Complete Fact 60 days after Same
Discovery decision on class
certification
Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California, United States.
A copy of the Partties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPmd5V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
- and -
David C. Frederick, Esq.
Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
apanner@kellogghansen.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Doren, Esq.
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
Veronica S. Moye, Esq.
Cynthia E. Richman, Esq.
Harry R. S. Phillips, Esq.
Ethan D. Dettmer, Esq.
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
Caeli A. Higney, Esq.
Eli M. Lazarus, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
rdoren@gibsondunn.com
dswanson@gibsondunn.com
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
vlewis@gibsondunn.com
crichman@gibsondunn.com
hphillips2@gibsondunn.com
edettmer@gibsondunn.com
rbrass@gibsondunn.com
chigney@gibsondunn.com
elazarus@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Schedule Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Apple iPhone
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
Event Current Date New Date
Second Class Jan. 13, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023
Certification
Opposition and
Supporting Expert
Evidence:
Second Class Mar. 3, 2023 Apr. 28, 2023
Certification Reply
and Rebuttal Evidence:
Hearing on Second Class Apr. 4, 2023 June 20, 2023
at Certification Motion:
On August 10, 2022, the Parties filed a joint Stipulation and
[Proposed] Order Modifying the Briefing and Hearing Schedule On
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
On August 12, 2022, the Court entered the Stipulation, which
extended certain deadlines relating to Plaintiffs' Second Class
Certification Motion.
On December 7, 2022, the Parties met and conferred, and counsel for
Plaintiffs informed counsel for Apple that the current estimate for
delivering the revised standard error calculations to Apple was
December 30, but that it was possible the calculations would not be
complete until a later date.
Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California, United States.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOkBkP at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
- and -
David C. Frederick, Esq.
Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
apanner@kellogghansen.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Doren, Esq.
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
Veronica S. Moye, Esq.
Cynthia E. Richman, Esq.
Harry R. S. Phillips, Esq.
Ethan D. Dettmer, Esq.
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
Caeli A. Higney, Esq.
Eli M. Lazarus, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
rdoren@gibsondunn.com
dswanson@gibsondunn.com
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
vlewis@gibsondunn.com
crichman@gibsondunn.com
hphillips2@gibsondunn.com
edettmer@gibsondunn.com
rbrass@gibsondunn.com
chigney@gibsondunn.com
elazarus@gibsondunn.com
AYAME HIBACHI: Fails to Provide Chefs Proper Wages, Lin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WANG LIN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. AYAME HIBACHI LLC d/b/a Ayame Hibachi; BO WEI
ZHU a/k/a Bowei Zhu, and LEO "DOE," Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00430-WES-LDA (D.R.I., Dec. 6, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as other
employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island
General Law arising from Defendants' various willful, malicious,
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 10, 2021
to March 02, 2022 to work as a chef at Defendants' restaurant. He
alleges pursuant to FLSA and RIGL that he is entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, (2) unpaid overtime wages,
(3) liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment and post judgement
interest, and/or (5) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Ayame Hibachi LLC is an Asian restaurant based in Rhode
Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
BENJAMIN DICHTER: Fails to Get Funds for Class Action Defense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alayne McGregor, writing for Centretown Buzz, reports that an
attempt by convoy organizers to get $200,000 of the funds being
held for a class action to compensate Centretowners for what they
suffered in the convoy occupation was rejected.
Justice Calum MacLeod rejected the motion from Benjamin Dichter and
Chris Garrah to release the funds in order to fund their defense
against the class action. In his ruling, MacLeod noted that these
funds were not their own, but were rather held in trust for convoy
participants: "there is no evidence that the funds were intended
for the personal use of the convoy organizers or the fundraisers
themselves."
MacLeod also concluded that the defendants had not shown that they
had no other means by which they could retain counsel or defend
themselves: "Neither of the moving parties have made the kind of
frank financial disclosure that might be necessary to make a
finding of impecuniosity."
He also noted that, even if the defendants said they did not honk
horns or block streets themselves, as organizers they could still
be liable for the actions of others in the occupation. The province
of Ontario is seeking forfeiture of any escrowed funds beyond those
for the class action as it contends the occupation was a criminal
activity, the ruling noted.
The money in escrow - about $5.3 million - was donated to support
the convoy occupation. It was frozen last spring as part of the
class action lawsuit against the convoy occupation and its
organizers and major participants, pending the result of the
lawsuit.
The class action was filed on behalf of Zexi Li and others by
Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ. It seeks damages for those residents and
businesses most affected by the incessant honking and engine noise,
air pollution, and other effects of the trucks which blocked
downtown streets for more than three weeks this winter.
Champ opposed the release of funds to Dichter and Garrah. "They
didn't have any solid claim to access the money. We're going to do
everything we can to ensure those funds are preserved until the end
of this action. If we're successful, the funds should go towards
compensating the people of downtown Ottawa."
He said that a previous attempt to release funds to pay for convoy
organizers' appearance before the Public Order Emergency Commission
had been abandoned.
Class action to be amended to replace John Doe's with
representatives of defendant classes In November, Champ applied to
amend the class action to replace the "John Doe" placeholders with
five specific names: the GiveSendGo fundraising platform and its
president Jacob Wells; New Brunswicker Brad Howland, who donated
$75,000 to the convoy; and Jonker Trucking and its president Harold
Jonker.
Champ said Howland and Jonker were representative of the "donor"
and "trucker" class of defendants respectively. He said Jonker gave
numerous interviews expressing his support for the convoy cause,
while Howland is a "sophisticated businessman" who made comments on
social media supporting the tactics of the trucker protest and even
flew to Ottawa for a couple of days to take part.
GiveSendGo not only "took up the torch" to keep money flowing to
those truckers who were engaged in illegal activities, Champ said,
but when the convoy protesters were having difficulty opening bank
accounts for the donations, Wells signed a guarantee and an
agreement with the protesters that he would personally hold some of
the funds in trust separate from GiveSendGo.
"That company and its president were really going out of their way
to try to provide material support to those trucker protests. We
think they provided signal substantial assistance to the illegal
trucker activities and therefore should also be liable."
Action to also cover more residents and workers
The amendment also slightly expands the zone covered by the class
action to include another 2-3,000 residents, for a total of 15,000,
he said, as well as adding people working within the zone. The zone
would now include Parliament Hill and the construction workers
restoring the Centre Block who were laid off for weeks because of
the occupation.
The hearing for the amendment will be held in late January. Champ
hoped for a decision on that within two months, and then a hearing
on certifying the class action in late 2023. [GN]
BHP BILLITON: Seeks More Time for Class Certification Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et
al., Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly
Situated v. BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, AND MMGJ
ARKANSAS UPSTREAM, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on or before January 13, 2023.
1. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification
on December 15, 2022.
2. The Court's Amended Scheduling Order provides that MMGJ
has until January 6, 2023, to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion.
Due to the upcoming holiday and MMGJ's counsel's obligations in
other cases, MMGJ has good cause for the Court to grant a brief,
seven-day extension, making MMGJ's response deadline January 13,
2023. Plaintiffs' reply would then be due January 27, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 6.2, counsel for MMGJ has contacted
Plaintiffs' counsel with regard to this motion and is authorized to
state that this motion is unopposed.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDZP7l at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael B. Heister, Esq.
R. Ryan Younger, Esq.
E. Jonathan Mader, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1700
Facsimile: (501) 379-1701
E-mail: mheister@qgtlaw.com
ryounger@qgtlaw.com
jmader@qgtlaw.com
- and -
David W. Jones, Esq.
BECK REDDEN LLP
1221 McKinney, Suite 4500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 951-3700
Facsimile: (713) 951-3720
E-mail: jones@beckredden.com
BILOXI HMA: Case Management Order Entered in Henley Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY HENLEY On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. BILOXI H.M.A., LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00544-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge
Bradley W. Rath entered a case management order as follows:
-- Jury Trial: October 7, 2024
-- Pretrial: September 17-19, 2024
-- All discovery must be April 8, 2024
completed by:
-- Motions for joinder of May 15, 2023
parties or amendments to
the pleadings must be
filed by:
-- The parties’ experts must be
designated by the following
dates:
1. Plaintiff(s): November 2, 2023
2. Defendant(s): December 4, 2023
3. Plaintiff(s) January 4, 2024
Rebuttal:
-- All dispositive motions April 15, 2024
and Daubert-type motions
challenging another party's
expert must be filed by:
-- Settlement conference: May 29, 2024
Biloxi provides general medical and surgical hospital services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j8jRPL at no extra charge.[CC]
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Class Settlement in Roldan Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ROLDAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BLAND LANDSCAPING
COMPANY, INC., Case No. (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of class settlement.
-- The proposed settlement is procedurally fair and was
reached through vigorous, arm's-length negotiations and
after experienced counsel had evaluated the merits of
Plaintiff's claims.
-- The Court approves the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action settlement.
-- The Court hereby approves the Rule 23 class action
settlement.
-- The court hereby grants Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, inclusive of and accounting for litigation
expenses, and awards Class Counsel $583,333.33.
-- The Court also finds reasonable an award for Named
Plaintiff Manuel Roldan in the amount of $25,000.00 for
his service award as Named Plaintiff/Class Representative
for the asserted FLSA/Rule 23 collective/class wage and
hour claims and his commitment to this lawsuit and its
continued litigation and Opt-in Plaintiff J.M. Surles in
the amount of $15,000 for responding to Defendant's
written discovery requests and sitting for a deposition.
-- The Court confirms its prior Order appointing CPT Group
as the Settlement Administrator in this case, and the
duties CPT Group was previously ordered to perform
therein in conjunction with any order granting final
approval to the Settlement in this action.
Bland Landscaping is a regional, private equity backed, Commercial
and Estate Landscape Management and Contracting business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vdCPqU at no extra charge.[CC]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 20-12225-DPW (D. Mass.), Judge Douglas
P. Woodlock of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.
The Complaint presents a narrative alleging attempts to deceive
investors regarding the success of the company's new medical device
in an effort to prop up Boston Scientific stock prices, raise
capital and support improper insider trading. The action arises
from Boston Scientific's 2020 recall of its Lotus Edge device and
its decision to retire the entire Lotus Valve Platform.
Boston Scientific is a publicly traded manufacturer of medical
devices. Headquartered in Massachusetts, it develops, manufactures,
and markets a range of medical device platforms, including
interventional cardiovascular technologies.
The Complaint names seven individual Boston Scientific executives
as Defendants: Michael Mahoney, the Chairman, President, and CEO;
Daniel Brennan, the Executive VP and CFO; Joseph Fitzgerald, the
Executive VP and President of Rhythm Management (through July 6,
2020), and thereafter Executive VP and President of Interventional
Cardiology; Shawn McCarthy, the VP and General Manager of
Structural Heart Valves (through 2020); Kevin Ballinger, the
Executive VP and President of Interventional Cardiology (through
July 3, 2020); Ian Meredith, the Executive VP and Global Chief
Medical Officer; and Susan Vissers Lisa, the VP of Investor
Relations.
Union Asset Management Holding AG is the Lead Plaintiff. The Lead
Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased or acquired Boston Scientific common stock between Feb.
6, 2019 and Nov. 16, 2020 (the Class Period). The Lead Plaintiff is
the parent holding company of the Union Investment Group, an asset
management firm based in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. It funds
purchased common stock in Boston Scientific during the Class
Period.
Boston Scientific and seven high-ranking executives are alleged to
have perpetrated securities fraud on Boston Scientific investors by
making a host of false and misleading statements about the
commercial viability of Boston Scientific's Transcatheter Aortic
Valve Replacement device: the Lotus Edge. The Lotus Edge device is
a transcatheter heart valve used to treat patients suffering from
aortic stenosis.
The overarching contention is that Boston Scientific executives hid
technical failures and sluggish sales of the Lotus Edge from the
public during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that by
providing false reassurances that the device was safe, simple, and
marketable, the Defendants caused artificial inflation of Boston
Scientific common stock, in violation of Section 10(b), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Count
I) and in violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a) (Count II).
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
meet the heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud
claims under FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.
Judge Woodlock considers primarily two questions, both of which
must be answered in the affirmative if the Plaintiff's case is to
proceed: 1) whether any of the statements detailed in the Complaint
are both misleading and actionable and, if so, 2) whether
particularized facts alleged in the Complaint give rise to a strong
inference of the Defendants' scienter.
Judge Woodlock finds that nearly all of the misrepresentations
alleged by the Plaintiff amount to nonactionable corporate puffery,
opinions, and predictions. Two sets of statements detailed in the
Complaint, however, are actionable: 1) The inaccurate tallies of
the number of accounts opened in the Lotus launch by Ms. Lisa and
Mr. Fitzgerald on Aug. 19, 2020 and Oct. 15, 2020, respectively;
and 2) Mr. Mahoney's September and October statements that the
Lotus platform was a key growth driver and a viable investment.
Judge Woodlock turns now to whether the Plaintiff has met its
burden of pleading the Defendants' scienter with respect to these
statements. He finds that none of the Plaintiff's general
allegations of scienter, either individually or considered
together, give rise to an inference that is "at least as compelling
as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent". He now turns to
whether allegations of misrepresentation, specific to Ms. Lisa, Mr.
Fitzgerald, and Mr. Mahoney, can meet the "rigorous" inference
standard for scienter.
Judge Woodlock finds that the Plaintiff has not pleaded scienter as
to Ms. Lisa and Mr. Fitzgerald at the time of these statements. He
says in the absence of any allegations that Executive Defendants
Lisa and Fitzgerald had access to reports and data reflecting only
100 open accounts, he cannot find the high degree of recklessness
required to support scienter. However, he finds that the Plaintiff
has pleaded scienter as to Mr. Mahoney.
The Plaintiff's allegations adequately pleaded loss causation and
economic loss, though only as to the alleged corrective disclosure
on Nov. 17, 2020 based on the alleged misstatements in the
Complaint that Judge Woodlock has found actionable. In the
Complaint, the Plaintiff described in detail the questions analysts
asked following the announcement on Nov. 17, 2020, as well as
articles published after the announcement, which all centered on
the decision to terminate the Lotus platform.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has alleged a Section 10(b) violation as
to Mr. Mahoney and Boston Scientific, though only on the limited
basis of Mr. Mahoney's misrepresentations regarding Lotus' status
as a "growth driver" and the two-valve strategy's role for Boston
Scientific.
Because the Plaintiff successfully pleaded a Section 10(b)
violation, Judge Woodlock now turns to the Plaintiff's second
claim, which alleges a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a) by the Executive Defendants as
"controlling persons." The Defendants have challenged only the
first element of Section 20(a): an underlying violation of the
securities laws by the controlled entity. Their sole contention is
that the Plaintiff's purported failure to plead a Section 10(b)
claim successfully precludes Section 20(a) liability.
But Judge Woodlock has found to the contrary that the Plaintiff has
pleaded violations of Section 10(b) by Mr. Mahoney and Boston
Scientific. Accordingly, he need not determine whether any of the
other Executive Defendants were culpable participants because that
question is not before him. Cognizant of the First Circuit's
direction that control is a question of fact that will not
ordinarily be resolved summarily at the pleading stage because it
raises a number of complexities that should not be resolved on such
an underdeveloped record, and the parties' limited argument on the
Section 20(a) claim, he denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as
to Count II of the Complaint.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Woodlock grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; specifically, he
grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I, except as
alleged against Mr. Mahoney and Boston Scientific because the
Plaintiff has alleged misrepresentations involving a strong
inference of fraudulent scienter as to those Defendants and he
denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count II, the
Section 20(a) claim against the Executive Defendants.
In light of this disposition of the motion to dismiss, the case now
moves to the stage of factual development in anticipation of class
certification and summary judgment practice. In order to frame the
next stage of the litigation, the parties will meet and confer with
a view toward presenting a proposed schedule for such proceedings.
The parties will file their proposed schedule -- jointly, if
possible; separately, if deemed necessary to preserve perceived
concerns for a resolution that can only be provided by court
intervention -- by noon on Jan. 20, 2023. The parties will appear
in person in Courtroom 1 on Jan. 23, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. for a
scheduling conference to establish the schedule for the next stage
of these proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mf23yh5r from Leagle.com.
BOWLING GREEN: Ohio App. Reverses Class Certification in Keba Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lawrence Keba, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bowling Green
State University, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22AP-226 (Ohio
App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin
County, reverses the decision and judgment of the Court of Claims
of Ohio granting Keba's motion for class certification.
In March 2020, due to various governmental orders issued in
response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, BG converted its 2020
spring semester in-person classes to remote-learning classes for
the remainder of the semester. Keba was an undergraduate student at
BG enrolled in one on-line class and several in-person classes for
the 2020 spring semester.
As a result of BG's decision, Keba's in-person classes switched to
on-line learning for the remaining portion of the semester. BG
refunded housing, dining, and parking fees to students on a pro
rata basis for the weeks remaining in the 2020 spring semester.
BG's failure to refund any portion of tuition and other fees for
the 2020 spring semester is the subject of this litigation.
On Nov. 4, 2020, Keba, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed suit against BG alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion claims. Specifically, he alleged that he
paid for a full semester of in-person classes with access to BG's
campus, but that, for approximately half of the 2020 spring
semester, BG instead provided him with on-line classes without
access to the campus. Keba sought damages predicated on the alleged
difference in market value between in-person classes with access to
BG's campus and on-line classes without access to the campus.
On Oct. 1, 2021, Keba filed a motion for class certification. BG
opposed the motion. Keba proposed the following class: All
undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the Main Campus of
Bowling Green State University during the Spring 2020 semester who
paid tuition and/or fees.
The trial court held a hearing on Keba's motion for class
certification on March 11, 2022. The hearing did not involve the
presentation of any evidence. During the hearing, the court
indicated it was going to certify the class, but the trial court
asked the parties to file a proposed redefined class on which they
could agree.
Thereafter, the parties jointly submitted the following amended
class definition: All undergraduate students enrolled in classes at
Bowling Green State University during the Spring 2020 semester who
paid tuition and/or fees who: (a) paid tuition and fees, but only
to the extent they were not refunded; and (b) did not withdraw from
classes before March 13, 2020.
In a decision filed March 30, 2022, the trial court found that Keba
had satisfied the requirements for class certification by a
preponderance of the evidence. However, the trial court modified
the parties proposed amended class definition as follows: All
undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the Main Campus of
Bowling Green State University during the Spring 2020 semester who
(a) paid tuition or fees, or both, but only to the extent that such
tuition or fees, or both, were not refunded, and who (b) did not
withdraw from classes before March 13, 2020.
With this modification to the class definition, the trial court
granted Keba's motion for class certification.
BG appeals that determination and assigns the following errors:
a. The trial court erred in holding that the defense of
impossibility does not bar the Plaintiff-Appellee's claims.
b. The trial court erred in granting the Plaintiff-Appellee's
motion for class certification.
Because the trial court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis of
the Civ.R. 23(A)(2) and 23(B)(3) factors for class certification,
the Court of Appeals reverses the judgment.
Civ.R. 23(B)(3) states that a class action may be maintained if
Civ.R. 23(A) is satisfied, and if (3) the court finds that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The Court of Appeals finds that the ultimate success or failure of
the defense goes to the merits of the claim, not certification of
the class. What matters for purposes of class certification is that
the impossibility defense will be decided the same way for the
entire class. This was precisely the point the trial court made
during the hearing when it noted that impossibility was a defense
to failure to perform that could be raised later, but it was not
relevant to determining if purported class members suffered common
or individualized damages. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals
overrules BG's first assignment of error.
Turning to BG's second assignment of error, the Court of Appeals
finds that Keba's market-based damage theory and his expert's
proposed analysis raises significant questions regarding the
commonality and predominance requirements for class certification.
whether or not every member, or any member, of Keba's proposed
class suffered some quantifiable injury under his theory of damages
was part of BG's argument contesting the commonality and
predominance requirements of Civ.R. 23(B)(3). The trial court
needed to rigorously analyze Keba's theory of damages to determine
if these requirements were met before certifying the class.
Although the trial court clearly recognized that the issue of
damages was "very, very difficult," it deferred that issue to a
future merits ruling and did not confront it in certifying the
class, despite the fact that BG argued that Keba's theory of
damages was fundamentally flawed and did not support Keba's claim
that all class members suffered injury. Therefore, even though the
trial court's decision expressly found that Keba satisfied all of
the Civ.R. 23 requirements, the transcript demonstrates that the
trial court did not conduct a rigorous analysis of the commonality
and predominance factors in the context of damages. The trial court
failed to rigorously analyze whether Keba's theory of damages
established that all members, or any members, of the proposed class
suffered quantifiable damages and whether common issues predominate
over individual issues.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals sustains BG's second assignment of
error, overrules the first assignment of error, and reverses the
judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mu47t47b from Leagle.com.
On brief: Climaco Wilcox Peca & Garofoli Co., LPA, Scott D.
Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com; Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and
Joshua D. Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- for the Appellee.
Argued: Joshua D. Arisohn .
On brief: Eastman & Smith LTD, Stephen E. Chappelear --
sechappelear@eastmansmith.com -- Jared J. Lefevre --
jjlefevre@eastmansmith.com -- and Nicholas W. Bartlett --
nwbartlett@eastmansmith.com -- for the Appellant. Argued: Jared J.
Lefevre.
BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set February 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 14 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed securities class
action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Braxia shares on
the OTC stock market (OTCMKTS: BRAXF).
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH
27, 2020 AND FEBRUARY 17, 2021, INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED
BRAXIA SHARES ON THE OTC STOCK MARKET AND WERE INJURED THEREBY:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of the Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on February 27, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable James V. Selna at the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 10C, 411 West 4th Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701,
to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 6, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/Braxia/. You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Schneider v. Champignon Brands Inc., c/o Strategic Claims Services,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online orpostmarked no later than March
30, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than February 6, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than February 6, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Braxia, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Casey Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Schneider v. Champignon Brands Inc.
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net [GN]
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Adding New Defendant May Delay COVID Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for Burnabynow, reports that a
class-action lawsuit alleging the B.C. government overstepped its
authority with COVID-19 health orders might be delayed if the B.C.
Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) needs to be added as a
defendant.
The lawsuit, filed by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy and led by Kipling Warner, seeks to
challenge and obtain compensation for various measures, mandates
and restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic.
Justice David Crerar is hearing arguments on an application for
class-action certification. He is listening to applications of
various kinds as well as evidence to determine if a class action is
a suitable choice for the case.
Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry is named as a defendant
in the lawsuit.
Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak
a pandemic in March 2020, Henry issued orders designed to reduce
the spread of the virus in B.C., including requiring proof of
vaccination to enter a number of businesses. The so-called "vaccine
passport" was in place in B.C. from September 2021 to April 2022.
On Dec. 12, plaintiff lawyer Polina Furtula said the challenge
revolves around whether or not the pandemic warranted having an
emergency declared. She the provincial legislative conditions for
the declaration of an emergency were not met. She called the
resulting response "disproportionate."
The plaintiff's amendments to the initial notice of civil claim, a
document that starts a civil lawsuit, mention the issue of
quarantine, Crerar heard Dec. 14. The quarantine issue is one to do
with the BCCDC, said the defendant's lawyer, Emily Lapper.
The BCCDC came up when Lapper said Furtula had given an affidavit
Dec. 14 with what appeared to be from the centre's website.
"This is highly prejudicial to the defence," Lapper said, adding
the BCCDC is a separate legal entity from the provincial health
officer.
"They would have to be added as a party," Lapper said. "The would
need to be able to respond to certification."
Furtula replied that the BCCDC is a part of the province and exists
as an operational and scientific arm of the provincial health
officer.
"In my submission, they're one and the same," she said.
Crerar, however, wanted to know the exact relationship.
Lapper said the BCCDC is a creation of the Provincial Health
Services Authority, adding the authority had not been named as a
defendant.
"That could be an issue," Lapper said. "If we do have to add new
defendants, we have to start certification over."
Crerar wasn't interested in that but said a non-party to the
dispute might have to be allowed to participate. He said the
plaintiff would have to provide particulars of the quarantine
information.
"We will continue the certification hearing," the judge said.
The province is expected to bring various applications to end the
proceedings.
One of those could be an abuse-of-process application, an argument
based on the fact that Warner has tried to litigate similar issues
in other proceedings. [GN]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Bid for Leave to Serve Discovery Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, as Curator
of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, on their own behalf and all others
similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara D. Holmes
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve
a third round of class certification discovery.
The Plaintiffs have had ample time to conduct class discovery in
this litigation and much of the information that they now seek is
either merits discovery or, if uniquely class discovery, could have
been requested at an earlier date.
The class discovery has been ongoing in these cases since their
commencement and very little additional progress made toward
resolution on the merits. It is time for the parties to proceed. A
status/case management conference was held on December 13, 2022.
Counsel participating were: Elizabeth Aniskevich, Ali Naini, and
Michael Kelley for Plaintiffs and Erica Rutner, John Bertino, and
Jesslyn Zeigler for Defendant.
The parties requested a status conference to discuss the impact of
the death of Plaintiff George Gunza. The Plaintiffs' counsel
suggests that, because Mr. Gunza died intestate, it may be up to
120 days before letters of administration or other representative
designation is directed by the North Carolina probate court.
In the meantime, Plaintiffs' counsel are faced with the ethical
dilemma of not having a client in the Gunza part of this
consolidated litigation and the need to proceed prudently to avoid
taking action that is or could be perceived as without direction of
a client.
Accordingly, the Court takes no action on any pending case
management deadlines and all unexpired deadlines remain in place.
The remaining parties must continue with preparation of this case,
as it appears there is discovery with which Plaintiffs' counsel can
and should proceed without the potential ethical concerns
implicated by Mr. Gunza's death. Further, to be clear, the Court is
not foreclosing the possibility that a stay may be appropriate at
some point, simply that it is not currently necessary.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WhI4SD at no extra charge.[CC]
CALISTOGA COFFEE: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
YUGELY NUNEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALISTOGA COFFEE COMPANY LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 535535/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Dec. 6, 2022) is a
class-action lawsuit challenging Defendant's discriminatory
business practices 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.
The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
calistogacoffeeco.com website. Through the Website, Defendant sells
its products such as coffee, tea, and other related products.
According to the complaint, Defendant's Website contained access
barriers that prevented Plaintiff and other visually impaired
and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon.
The Plaintiff used the NVDA screen-reader when she tried to access
the Website. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff encountered
several problems with the screen reader due to the Website's
accessibility issues.[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
CAPITAL HOME: Faces Class Action Over Unlawfully Recorded Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Capital Home Mortgage has recorded
telephone conversations with potential buyers without notice or
consent.
According to the 11-page lawsuit, the mortgage lender has run afoul
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The allegedly
unlawful, secret recording by the company was, as the case reads,
"knowing, willful, and intentional."
The suit contends that the privacy rights of the plaintiff, a
California resident, were violated as a result of Capital Home
Mortgage's failure to "advise or otherwise provide notice at the
beginning of the conversation(s) with Plaintiff that the call(s)
would be recorded, and Defendant did not try to obtain Plaintiff's
consent before such recording."
Per the complaint, the plaintiff's information was sold to Capital
Home Mortgage by credit reporter Experian sometime after the
consumer signed up for identity theft protection in June 2017. The
plaintiff was contacted by the mortgage lender by phone in November
of 2022, the case says. During this call, the filing claims, the
defendant gave no warning that it was documenting the conversation
and did not request the consent of the plaintiff for such
recording.
"Plaintiff was surprised and annoyed that Defendant recorded his
call without telling him," the complaint reads. "There was no
beeping noise or any indication of recording."
According to the lawsuit, Capital Home Mortgage "records all its
calls, both inbound and outbound, like the one it made to
Plaintiff," without notice.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in California whose
cellphone calls were unlawfully recorded by Capital Home Mortgage
or its agents. [GN]
CG CONSULTING: Ousley Bid to Certify Rule 23 Class Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA OUSLEY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CG
CONSULTING, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order:
1. denying the motion to certify Rule 23 Class;
2. granting in part the motion for partial summary judgment;
3. finding Messrs. Quaranta and Castaldo are "employers"
under the FLSA and Ohio law when the alleged violations
occurred.
4. denying the motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs move on their Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) overtime wage Count IX, but provide limited argument as
to why they are so entitled and fail to explain who is moving on
this Count. This testimony alone is not enough to demonstrate no
genuine issues of material fact exist. Finally, summary judgment on
Count XI is denied because Ohio's Prompt Pay Act "rises and falls"
with the underlying FLSA and Ohio wage and hour claims, and there
are issues of fact with respect to those claims."
Concerning Count XV, Plaintiffs' motion is premature because
Plaintiffs have yet to prove the CG Defendants violated the FLSA,
let alone did so willfully. Summary judgment on Counts VIII, IX, X,
XI, and XV is denied, the Court adds.
The case is a hybrid wage and hour Fair Labor Standards Act
collective and putative Rule 23 class action
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant CG Consulting,
LLC, a limited liability company that owns and operates bars and
restaurants in the adult entertainment industry.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Ohio Rule 23
class:
"All non-owner, non-employer current and former hourly,
employees to whom a tip credit was applied and who worked
for the CG Defendants in Ohio during any workweek from May
2, 2016 to the present."
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W71nh7 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 27, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 14 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed securities class
action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Braxia shares on
the OTC stock market (OTCMKTS: BRAXF).
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH
27, 2020 AND FEBRUARY 17, 2021, INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED
BRAXIA SHARES ON THE OTC STOCK MARKET AND WERE INJURED THEREBY:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of the Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on February 27, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable James V. Selna at the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 10C, 411 West 4th Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701,
to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 6, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/Braxia/. You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Schneider v. Champignon Brands Inc., c/o Strategic Claims Services,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than March
30, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than February 6, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than February 6, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Braxia, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Casey Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Schneider v. Champignon Brands Inc.
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
By Order of the Court [GN]
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Parties Seek to Stay All Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as El Dorado Minerals, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00542-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order staying all proceedings while they complete private
mediation efforts.
On September 24, 2022, the Court entered the current Scheduling
Order. The current Scheduling Order sets the deadline for
authentication of produced documents for January 17, 2023, and the
deadline for Plaintiff's Rule 26 expert disclosures and reports for
February 16, 2023.
The Parties have been engaged in discovery since early 2022,
including voluminous document productions, third party discovery,
and deposition discovery.
While the Parties initially discussed resolution in the Summer of
2022, those talks broke down as a result of certain information
barriers.
Coffeyville Resources operates an oil refinery. The Company
produces gasoline and diesel fuels, and natural gas liquids.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hKbzNP at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
–and–
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Brady Smith Law, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
211 N. Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Kevin Hayes, Esq.
Pamela S. Anderson, Esq.
HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN &
NELSON, P.C.
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200
Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
Telephone: (918) 594-0400
Facsimile: (918) 594-0505
E-mail: khayes@hallestill.com
panderson@hallestill.com
–and–
Herbert Beigel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT BEIGEL
5641 N. Chieftain Trail
Tucson, AZ 8570-1302
Telephone: (520) 825-1995
Facsimile: (520) 844-6215
E-mail: hbeigel@me.com
COLTER ENERGY: Case Management Order Entered in Joyce Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN JOYCE, Individually
and for others similarly situated, v. COLTER ENERGY SERVICES USA,
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01367-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge David
Stewart Cercone entered a case management order as follows:
-- The case is placed under Local Rule 16.1 for all pretrial
procedures and all provisions thereof will be strictly
enforced.
This action will proceed in phases. Phase I shall
encompass an initial phase of fact discovery on class
certification and as to liability and damages. Subsequent
phases will be set after the court conducts further
consultation with counsel and/or resolves plaintiff's
anticipated motion for class certification.
-- The trial counsel shall appear for all scheduled
conferences and proceedings before the court, including
status, pretrial management and settlement conferences.
-- Phase one fact discovery on class certification and
liability shall be completed by March 31, 2023. All
written discovery shall be initiated in sufficient time
to permit responses to be completed and depositions to be
taken in compliance with all applicable deadlines.
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class and
submissions/brief in support thereof on or before April
28, 2023.
-- The Defendant's responses/briefs in opposition shall be
filed on or before May 30, 2023. The Plaintiff may file a
reply brief on or before June 13, 2023.
Colter is a provider of production testing equipment and services
to the oil and gas industry in Western Canada and the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HHzs37 at no extra charge.[CC]
CORSAIR GAMING: Court Narrows Claims in McKinney Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, et al.,
v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00312-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order granting in part
and denying in part motion to dismiss:
-- The Court grants Corsair's motion to dismiss as to
(1) omission claims;
(2) DDR-5 products that Plaintiffs did not purchase;
(3) national and multistate class allegations; and
(4) breach of express warranty claims.
-- The Court denies Corsair's motion as to DDR-4 products that
Plaintiffs did not purchase. Leave to amend is granted to
allow Plaintiffs to plead that their express warranty
claims are brought under California law.
Because Plaintiffs' allegations plausibly plead a breach of express
warranty under California law, the Court grants leave to amend to
clarify that their express warranty claims are brought under
California law.
The Plaintiffs Antonio McKinney and Clint Sundeen allege that
Defendant Corsair packaging of and advertisements for its computer
memory products contain deceptive and misleading statements, in
violation of the common law and the consumer protection laws of
California and 43 other states.
Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company
headquartered in Milpitas, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMIMCU at no extra charge.[CC]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Medina Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eukarys Medina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07388 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the State Consumer Fraud
Acts; breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act; and unjust enrichment arising from the Defendant's
alleged unlawful conduct.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels and
sells 5.73 liters of detergent marketed as sufficient for 146 loads
of laundry under its Kirkland Signature Ultra Clean brand. Though
"146 Loads" grabs the Plaintiff's and other purchaser's attention,
this is followed by a difficult-to-see asterisk. The front label
does not inform consumers that an explanation for the asterisk can
be found on the back label. Only when the container is reversed and
the consumer wades through a wall of pictures, symbols and words of
varying size, font and color, will they learn the amount of
detergent is only sufficient for "[*] 146 loads when filled to
slightly below line 4 on the cup," says the suit.
The alleged representation of 146 loads when users will achieve
half of that number is misleading because it is a significant
disparity. The Product contains other representations and omissions
which are false and misleading. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $20.59 for 5.73 L, excluding tax and
sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, the suit alleges.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is a membership warehouse club. The
Company sells all kinds of food, automotive supplies, toys,
hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health,
and beauty aids, as well as other goods. Costco Wholesale serves
customers worldwide.[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.
JAMES CHUNG LAW OFFICE
43-22 216th St.
Bayside, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
E-mail: Jchung_77@msn.com
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over "Flouride Free" Toothpaste
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges CVS Pharmacy's purportedly
certified-natural, fluoride-free Antiplaque and Whitening
toothpaste is misleadingly advertised.
The 13-page complaint out of New York says that although the CVS
Health product is touted as "Certified Natural," "Fluoride Free"
and "Antiplaque," the toothpaste does not contain fluoride
alternatives able to remove or reduce plaque to fight gingivitis.
The suit stresses that consumers who buy the CVS toothpaste expect
it to contain non-fluoride ingredients that have a "therapeutically
significant effect" with regard to reducing plaque and combatting
gingivitis.
By marketing the toothpaste as "Fluoride Free," CVS suggests that
the product contains other ingredients that also fight plaque and
therefore gingivitis, the lawsuit relays. However, the filing
highlights that there are no comparable plaque-fighting ingredients
mentioned on the product's back label, and that the listed
components are in fact "[incapable] of achieving a clinically
significant reduction in gingivitis."
The toothpaste at issue is also marketed as "Certified Natural,"
which the lawsuit claims is deceptive because it implies each
ingredient is natural or organically sourced. To the contrary, the
complaint says that the ingredients are in fact "subject to
significant processing" to the extent that "consumers would not
consider them natural."
Similarly, the suit contends that the front-label image of
peppermint suggests its presence in the product, when, in truth,
peppermint extract or oil is used only as a flavoring.
Per the case, the number of consumers looking for all-natural
toothpastes, particularly without fluoride, is growing. The suit
asserts that the "Fluoride Free" representation on the label, while
true, falsely implies that the active ingredients in the toothpaste
also fight plaque and thus gingivitis. According to the lawsuit,
however, the first ingredient listed on the label, dicalcium
phosphate dihydrate, was determined by the FDA to be ineffective
against gingivitis, as there is no data to link it with plaque
reduction.
Further, sodium bicarbonate, which is also listed as an active
ingredient, is similarly ineffective at reducing plaque or
gingivitis when used in toothpaste, the filing adds.
The lawsuit alleges that the misleading representation of the CVS
"Fluoride Free" toothpaste has caused consumers like the plaintiff
to overpay for the product.
The lawsuit looks to represent any residents of New York, Texas,
North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, West
Virginia, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Utah who purchased CVS
Health "Fluoride Free" and "Antiplaque & Whitening" toothpaste
during the statutes of limitations period. [GN]
D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES: Recio Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIDRO RECIO, DARIO
ALMONTE, RAHAMES RODRIGUEZ, JOSE PICHARDO DE LA CRUZ, ULRICH
ZIMERMAN HERNANDEZ, RAMON MUNOZ, AND AMBIORYS PEGUERO, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, v. D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES PARKING GARAGE,
INC., RAMCELL PARKING CORPORATION, IB PARKING LOT, INC., 119
PARKING LOT CORPORATION, RAFAEL ALMONTE, DAYHANA MARTINEZ, KELVIN
MEJIA, ARIEL REYES, and MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, Case No.
1:22-cv-06153-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams
entered an order referring action to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein
for the following purpose:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement);
-- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Class
Certification (if any).
D'Almonte is a Garage business operating in Bronx, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hIz4qi at no extra charge.[CC]
D.R. HORTON: Hundreds More Homeowners May Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bruce, writing for The Advocate, reports that after winning a
series of key rulings earlier this month, a Louisiana family is
preparing to expand its class-action lawsuit against one of the
nation's largest homebuilders.
Hundreds more homeowners across the state whose houses were built
by Texas-based construction firm D.R. Horton could join the fray,
according to documents recently filed in the state 19th Judicial
District Court in Baton Rouge.
But attorneys for D.R. Horton say that means the case is now under
federal jurisdiction and have taken steps to move it to federal
court.
Youngsville couple Alicia and West Dixon filed suit in March over a
Lafayette Parish house they purchased from D.R. Horton in 2014.
Their complaint alleges the home wasn't built to stand up to
Louisiana's sweltering heat and consequently has mold, humidity and
HVAC issues.
Bell Mechanical Services, one of the subcontractors that helped
D.R. Horton build the house, is named in the Dixons' lawsuit.
The couple's lawyers contend they are among thousands of homeowners
across the country that have fallen prey to D.R. Horton's deceptive
sales tactics.
In a Dec. 7 filing, the Dixons' attorneys amended their lawsuit to
expand the proposed putative class, setting the stage for a
class-action claim that could include as many as 1,000 plaintiffs.
The Dixons would become class representatives, suing on behalf of
themselves and "all other individuals similarly situated" who
bought a D.R. Horton-built home after Jan. 1, 2007.
The amended complaint indicates hundreds of Louisiana homeowners
whose residences were built with "defective design and
construction" could possibly join the class-action suit as
plaintiffs.
"D.R. Horton is again trying to delay and conceal the truth about
what it is telling prospective homeowners to try and sell houses,"
Lance Unglesby, the Dixons' lead attorney, said in a statement on
Dec. 9. "D.R. Horton has a history of failing to disclose material
information to prospective buyers and using unethical sales
tactics. Our clients have told us that D.R. Horton never warned
them about humidity issues in their home designs, even after D.R.
Horton received complaints."
Attorneys representing D.R. Horton say the Dixons' amended suit
triggered the Class Action Fairness Act, a congressional bill
enacted in 2005 that expanded federal jurisdiction for large
class-action lawsuits.
"We did that subject to our position that all claims in the case
should be referred to arbitration, as agreed in the contract
between the parties," New Orleans attorney James Alcee Brown said
on Dec. 14, noting that he plans to argue D.R. Horton arbitration
rights in federal court. "It very much remains our position that
our arbitration is the legally preferred and best forum for a
prompt and fair resolution of the plaintiffs' claims, as opposed to
court proceedings, which typically go on for years."
The recent developments come on the heels of several orders
regarding how many internal documents D.R. Horton will have to turn
over to the Dixons. Chief Judge Donald Johnson, who presided over
the case in the 19th JDC, settled a legal battle over discovery in
a Dec. 2 ruling that swung heavily in the plaintiffs' favor.
The Dixons' attorneys plan to use business and training documents
to prove D.R. Horton has a pattern of employing deceptive and
coercive sales tactics to pressure customers into buying homes.
D.R. Horton's attorneys wanted to limit the discovery just to
documents from the Dixons' 2014 home purchase. But Johnson
determined all the company's "corporate, divisional and local"
sales-related documents and training manuals can be used by the
plaintiffs.
He also enacted a 16-page list of protocols to govern how
electronically stored files are handled and to streamline the
transfer process so it's speedy and efficient.
In doing so, the judge denied a protective order sought by D.R.
Horton's lawyers to shield the company from what they termed
"burdensome" transfer procedures.
Johnson, in ruling for the protocols, noted that D.R. Horton's
legal team did not know about or have a copy of a second sales
contract that the Dixons signed on their home in June 2014. He also
emphasized the fact that a corporate representative testified
during a deposition that D.R. Horton doesn't "maintain any hard
documents, everything is electronic."
"In this age of electronic documents where so many responsive
documents are contained in electronic format, such as emails and
documents created using word processing software, a refusal to
negotiate a workable search protocol is unreasonable," the judge
wrote in his order.
Unglesby said Johnson's rulings are a pivotal turning point in the
case as the two sides continue their battle over whether the legal
dispute should be settled in court or through arbitration.
"It's going to have an extraordinary impact on our ability to prove
that D.R. Horton manipulated potential homebuyers," Unglesby said
during a phone interview. "It's going to have a huge impact on the
arbitration litigation. And it's going to even the playing field
for these aggrieved homeowners, who are all in dire straits and
frustrated with D.R. Horton." [GN]
DIAMONDBACK E&P: Ct. Modifies Scheduling Order in CCHF Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH
FOUNDATION a/k/a W.I. COOK FOUNDATION, INC., on behalf of itself
and a class of similarly situated persons, v. DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00359-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy D.
DeGiusti entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows:
Event New Deadline
-- Class Certification Motion filed May 30, 2023
with supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures
-- Class Certification Response July 27, 2023
filed with supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures
-- Class Certification Reply filed August 31, 2023
with any rebuttal evidence,
including rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any
-- Class Certification Discovery September 28, 2023
Cutoff
-- Class Certification Hearing TBD
Diamondback &P provides acquisition, development, exploration, and
exploitation of onshore oil and natural gas reserves.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YxWfV3 at no extra charge.[CC]
ERIC SCHMITT: Benson Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eric Schmitt, et al.
The case is styled as Ronald Benson, Derrick Hall, Dawn Johnson,
John Lansing, Steven Ray Thomas, Jr., Robert Waldrup, Michelle
Whorff, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v.
Eric Schmitt, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the
State of Missouri; Michael Sack, in his official capacity as Police
Commissioner; St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department; Case No.
4:22-cv-01355-MTS (E.D. Mo., Dec. 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Eric Stephen Schmitt is an American lawyer and politician who has
served as the 43rd attorney general of Missouri since 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
400 7th St., NW, Suite 602
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 505-2058
Email: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
EVONIK CORP: Faces $1.4-Bil. Class Suit Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Evonik Corp.
agreed to have federal litigation claiming it mismanaged its $1.4
billion 401(k) plan certified as a class action covering more than
4,800 people.
Evonik said it supports the request by plaintiffs Stehle Harris and
David Elliot to certify a class consisting of all participants in
and beneficiaries of the company's retirement plan since February
2014, excluding certain of the company's senior leaders who were
named as defendants and their immediate families. At least 10
similar lawsuits claiming fiduciary breach under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act have gotten class status following
similar agreements, the parties said. [GN]
FRANK CALDERONI: BLETLIPF Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Long Island
Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and similarly situated former
stockholders of Anaplan, Inc. v. FRANK CALDERONI, VIKAS MEHTA, GARY
SPIEGEL, ROBERT BEAUCHAMP, SUSAN BOSTROM, and SURESH VASUDEVAN,
Case No. 2022-1172 (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 19, 2022), is brought
asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims stemming from Thoma
Bravo's ("TB") acquisition of the Company (the "Transaction")
against: (i) Frank Calderoni, Anaplan's former chief executive
officer, President, and Chairman of the board of directors, Vikas
Mehta, Anaplan's former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), and Gary
Spiegel (the "Officer Defendants"), Anaplan's General Counsel; and
(ii) Robert Beauchamp, Susan Bostrom, and Suresh Vasudevan.
In this case, Defendants elevated their own financial self-interest
in millions of dollars of equity grants during a pending merger
transaction over those of stockholders in closing the deal on the
originally negotiated terms. The equity grants breached an interim
operating covenant and ultimately cost stockholders $400 million
when the counterparty used the breach as an opportunity to
renegotiate the deal terms. By late 2021, Anaplan CEO Frank
Calderoni recognized that the Company's stockholders were unhappy
with his performance and that his time as CEO would soon end. He
also knew that a change of control transaction could trigger more
than $250 million in personal equity and golden parachute payments.
By early 2022, Calderoni and the Anaplan Board were running a sales
process that would save Calderoni from the shame of losing his job,
while still providing him with a windfall.
On March 17, 2022, Corvex Management and Sachem Head Capital
Management L.P., two large Anaplan stockholders, publicized their
intention to nominate directors and challenge Calderoni's CEO role.
On March 20, 2022, Anaplan announced an agreement to sell itself to
private equity firm TB for $66 per share, or $10.7 billion (the
"Original Transaction"). At this point, the Defendants' primary
obligation to stockholders was to ensure the Company could
consummate the value maximizing Original Transaction. The operative
merger agreement set forth clear (and typical) restrictions on the
Company's operations until closing.
Among other things, the Original Merger Agreement prohibited the
Company, between the signing and closing of the deal, from issuing
any equity grants, with a single contractual exception allowing
Anaplan to issue up to $105 million in equity to current employees
as part of the Company's annual merit review cycle. The Original
Merger Agreement did not permit Anaplan to issue any equity awards
to new hires between the signing and closing of the Transaction.
Pursuant to the Original Merger Agreement, the only way Anaplan was
permitted to exceed the $105 million limit on equity grants was to
seek "prior written consent" from TB – i.e., before the issuance
of such equity. Upon receipt of a request, TB could not
unreasonably withhold its consent.
The deal was announced as market valuations of companies in
Anaplan’s industry were declining. The market deteriorated even
more rapidly after the deal became public, making it predictable
that TB would exploit any opportunity to lower the $66 per share
price set in the Original Transaction. Within weeks of signing the
Original Merger Agreement, the Company's Compensation Committee met
to discuss potential 2022 equity grants pending the closing of the
Original Transaction. Calderoni, necessarily acting in his officer
capacity because non-independent directors cannot serve on the
Compensation Committee, was in attendance and made numerous
recommendations for new equity grants, including $9.5 million for
himself, $4.5 million for Mehta, and over $2 million to a new hire.
Anaplan requested and received TB’s limited consent only with
respect to the grants made to existing executives.
Once their own compensation was seemingly secure, Anaplan's
management and Compensation Committee completely abdicated their
responsibility to ensure the Company complied with the terms of the
Original Merger Agreement. Over the following weeks, Anaplan's
management, under the supervision of Calderoni and the Compensation
Committee, violated the Original Merger Agreement by both exceeding
the $105 million cap for current employees and granting
approximately $50 million of equity grants to new hires. The
Compensation Committee approved (and in some instances, actually
issued) some of these stock issuances in clear violation of the
Original Merger Agreement. Only after Defendants had both approved
and (to the tune of at least $12.5 million) granted new equity in
violation of the Original Merger Agreement, on May 23, 2022,
Calderoni contacted TB to seek after-the fact consent, i.e.,
forgiveness, for the equity grants.
Recognizing the opportunity to exploit Anaplan's clear breach of a
deal that TB desperately wanted to renegotiate, TB knew exactly how
to make the most of the leverage Calderoni and the other Defendants
had gifted to them. In the end, in order to prevent TB from walking
from the deal entirely, the Board agreed to lower the purchase
price from $66 per share to $63.75 per share. Anaplan's
stockholders thus suffered a price reduction of about $400 million.
Calderoni still walked away from the deal with a payout of nearly
$260 million, and Mehta walked away with over $33 million.
The Defendants' deliberate disregard or reckless indifference to
their obligation to maximize value for the whole body of
stockholders by ensuring the Transaction closed on its original
terms is not exculpated. Defendants' decision to make the public
stockholders bear the cost of their breach of the Original Merger
Agreement rather than absorb those consequences personally is not
exculpated. Defendants should be held accountable for costing their
stockholders so much, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Long Island Pension
Fund was the beneficial owner of shares of Anaplan stock.
Frank Calderoni was Anaplan's CEO, President, and Chairman of the
Board through the closing of the Transaction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3600
- and -
Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
Andrew W. Robertson, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
1740 Broadway, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (877) 216-1552
FRED MEYER STORES: Sapphire Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amelia Sapphire, individually and as class
representative v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Case No.
22-2-19510-0-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 19, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01795.
The Plaintiff's Complaint does not plead a specific amount of
damages or amount in controversy. Rather, the Complaint only
contains generic statements that "Plaintiff and the Class have been
deprived of compensation in amounts to be determined at
trial."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
Julie Y. Zong, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
Email: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
Julie.Zong@jacksonlewis.com
FRONTRUNNERS INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontrunners
Incorporated. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frontrunners
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-07712 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frontrunners -- https://frontrunnersla.com/ -- has been providing
Athletic and Lifestyle Footwear as well as Apparel and Accessories
to the Southern California Community since 1977.[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
FTX TRADING: Footballer Tom Brady Named Defendant in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Raskin, writing for FOR DAILYMAIL.COM, reports that after a
divorce and 6-7 start to the NFL season, Tom Brady's miserable 2022
is at risk of getting worse, somehow.
A class-action lawsuit seeks to hold the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
quarterback, his ex-wife Gisele Bundchen, and nine other celebrity
endorsers of FTX responsible for the cryptocurrency exchange's
recent collapse.
'As a New England Patriots fan my entire life, you can imagine the
influence that Tom Brady would have,' Michael Livieratos told the
Washington Post after allegedly losing tens of thousands of dollars
in the FTX bankruptcy. The Post originally reported that Livieratos
lost $30,000, but he has since informed DailyMail.com that the
figure is incorrect.
FTX was a high-profile cryptocurrency exchange that made major
inroads with investors, thanks to celebrity endorsements. Earlier
this year, Brady was seen in an ad for the platform, prompting
Livieratos to move his life savings from one crypto exchange onto
FTX, he told the Post.
Since then, FTX has collapsed, and on Dec. 13, the US government
filed criminal and civil charges against Sam Bankman-Fried, the
exchange's 30-year-old founder of FTX, accusing him of widespread
financial fraud.
The problem for Livieratos and the other plaintiffs in the proposed
class-action suit, is that recovering any losses will be difficult,
considering FTX has reportedly been wiped out by the collapse.
'We're not going to be able to recover all the losses here,' FTX's
new CEO John J. Ray III recent told a House committee.
With the help of Florida attorney Adam Moskowitz, Livieratos and
the other plaintiffs are now seeking to hold FTX's celebrity
endorsers accountable, including tennis star Naomi Osaka, Golden
State Warriors guard Stephen Curry, and entrepreneur Kevin 'Mr.
Wonderful' O'Leary from the reality show 'Shark Tank.'
'You have very rich people we all love telling us that they checked
this out, and it was okay,' Moskowitz said in an interview. 'Why
shouldn't they be held responsible?'
The proposed lawsuit argues that the exchange's interest-bearing
accounts were technically a security, requiring its endorsers to
publicize details of their compensations from FTX.
'They have never disclosed the nature, scope, and amount of
compensation they personally received in exchange for the
promotion,' the complaint alleges.
And without that information, Moskowitz argues, investors were
unfairly disadvantaged.
But the lawsuit is anything but a sure thing.
Last month, a federal judge in California tossed a similar lawsuit
against Kim Kardashian, boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and others, who
promoted a crypto token, EMAX, in a doomed bid to raise its value,
artificially.
The endorsers did agree to pay millions in Fines to the SEC, but
the judge decided that the investors held some responsibility for
their own losses. [GN]
GAIA INC: Armbruster Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Dana Armbruster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GAIA, INC., JIRKA RYSAVY; and PAUL TARELL, Case No.
1:22-cv-03267-STV (D. Colo., Dec. 20, 2022), is brought on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased the securities of Gaia for the time period December 26,
2017 through and including November 7, 2022 (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
During the Class Period Gaia, Company founder, Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), and Chairman Jirka Rysavy; and Company Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") Paul Tarell misrepresented to investors
the Company's subscriber growth, business prospects, adequacy of
internal controls, and concealed an ongoing SEC investigation.
On November 6, 2017, Gaia disseminated a press release announcing
results for the third quarter of 2017, which was filed the same
with the SEC on Form 8-K. In this release, the Company purported to
have achieved a paying subscriber count of 311,000 on September 30,
2017, up from 180,000 one year prior, or a 73% subscriber growth
rate from 46% in the third quarter of 2016. Then, the Company filed
its quarterly report on November 7, 2017 for the period ended
September 30, 2017. The Form 10Q was signed and separately
certified by Defendants Rysavy and Tarell pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002—attesting to the accuracy and
truthfulness of the information contained therein.
The statements were materially false and misleading because
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company's Q1 2019 subscriber count was overstated; the Company
lacked adequate internal controls; as a result Defendants had a
heightened risk of regularly scrutiny and ultimately subject to an
SEC investigation and action; and as a result of the foregoing, as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Had the Plaintiffs and the Class been aware of the adverse
information they would not have purchased the Company's securities
at all or would not have purchased such securities at the
artificially inflated prices at which they did, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Gaia securities at artificially inflated
prices.
Gaia produces and sells subscriptions to its web-based content,
which consists of yoga and meditation, among other topics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
GARDNER TRUCKING: Order on Stay of Discovery & Schedule Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASPER LEUZINGER, MICHAEL
ALLEN JENSEN, and WILLIAM MATNEY-TATE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., ET AL.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-04952-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order regarding stay of discovery and
schedule:
1. The stay on all discovery shall continue with respect to
CRST Dedicated West.
2. Discovery with respect to the named plaintiffs in the
consolidated action is open and not stayed.
3. Discovery with respect to current and former drivers in
the Expedited Solutions operating division is open and not
stayed.
4. The Court adopts the schedule proposed by the parties, as
modified:
Event Parties' Joint Proposal
-- Non-Expert Disc. Cutoff November 3, 2023
-- Expert Disclosures November 17, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 8, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff December 29, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification January 15, 2024
-- Opposition February 15, 2024
-- Reply March 7, 2024
-- Hearing April 2, 2024
Gardner Trucking provides trucking transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FZgIuB at no extra charge.[CC]
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Seeks More Time To Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOYA KENAN and MONICA
COOPER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-04270-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting an extension until January 30, 2023 for which to
file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for Conditional
Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed a non-emergency Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Certification, providing the Defendant only 14 days
until December 29, 2022, to respond. The Plaintiffs' Motion is no
emergency, and its timing amounts to clear calendaring gamesmanship
designed to prejudice Defendant and prevent it from mounting an
effective response.
The Plaintiff filed their Collective and Class Action Complaint on
October 26, 2022. The Defendant filed its Answer on November 18,
2022. Discovery opens on December 19, 2022.
The Parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on December 8, 2022.
During the Rule 26(f) conference, the Parties discussed the
challenges posed by the upcoming holidays. The Plaintiffs' counsel
specifically represented to Defendant's counsel in the 26(f)
conference that they would wait until after the holidays to file
the Motion.
Accordingly, Defendant prepared its draft of the Rule 26(f) report,
proposed that the Court bifurcate discovery in this case and, in
the alternative, proposed a stipulated briefing schedule, providing
Plaintiffs until January 30, 2023 to file the Motion, Defendant
until February 28, 2023 to file its opposition to same, and
Plaintiffs until March 21, 2023 to file their reply.
Global Payments is an American multinational financial technology
company that provides payment technology and services to merchants,
issuers and consumers.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wx7lI9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nathan D. Chapman, Esq.
Paul G. Sherman, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7303
E-mail: nchapman@kcozlaw.com
psherman@kcozlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Certification of Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that an opinion
authored by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Dec. 12 found that the
plaintiffs prosecuting a class action alleging that Google
surreptitiously intercepts and collects users' data even while
users are in a private browsing mode met the requirements to pursue
claims on behalf of an injunctive relief class, but not a damages
class.
In the 34-page ruling that also addressed dueling Daubert motions,
the court found that individualized questions of fact created
certification-defeating predominance issues.
After Judge Lucy H. Koh, now of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
denied Google's motion to dismiss in part, the case proceeded
towards certification. Judge Koh's opinion found that the
plaintiffs did not consent to Google's collection of their data
including their IP address, information identifying the browsing
software, geolocation, and information contained in Google
cookies.
The plaintiffs moved for certification of a proposed nationwide
class under Federal Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on Federal Wiretap
Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, as well as
breach of contract and privacy-related claims. They also sought
certification of a California-resident only class for violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
In the opinion, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that four contested
expert opinions could partially stay in the mix. Turning to class
certification, the court agreed with Google that the affirmative
defense of implied consent raises individualized issues that defeat
predominance as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.
In so finding, the court relied on evidence Google presented that
"its consent defense would be based on individual, and subjective,
interactions of what certain class members knew, read, saw, or
encountered." Concluding that the jury would be tasked with
filtering out which Google Chrome users consented to the alleged
conduct, and how, the court said that certification of a damages
class was inappropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, and
Google by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Parties Must Submit Proposed Redactions to Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation,
ASIF KUMANDAN, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson
Freeman entered an order directing the parties to submit a joint
request for any proposed redactions to class certification order,
or statement that no redactions are requested, by January 6, 2023.
On December 16, 2023, the Court issued an Order on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The order was filed conditionally
under seal because it may refer to sealed material or material
subject to a pending request to seal.
Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMbeER at no extra charge.[CC]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Maranda Sues Over Defective Vehicle Headlights
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK MARANDA and ROBERT EWING, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI
MOTOR AMERICA., INC., a California corporation, KIA MOTORS AMERICA,
INC., a California corporation, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a South
Korean corporation, and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, a South Korean
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02193 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; fraud by omission or fraudulent concealment;
unjust enrichment; and for violations of the Minnesota Prevention
of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, the South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.
This is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose
material facts and a safety concern to consumers including
Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the Defendants
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the Class Vehicles
without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' headlights were
defective.
The Defendants' failure to disclose the Headlight Defect has caused
Plaintiffs and putative class members to lose the use of their
Vehicles' Headlights, the use of their vehicles at night or during
inclement weather, and/or incur costly repairs that have conferred
an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendants, says the suit.
Had Defendants disclosed the Headlight Defect, Plaintiffs and Class
Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles, would have
paid less for them, or would have required Defendants to replace,
or pay for the replacement of the defective Headlights with a
non-defective version before their warranty periods expired, the
suit asserts.
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. manufactures and retails
automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
IKEA US: Meyers' Bid to Certify Class Denied; Dukich Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA and JOHN DUKICH, et al. v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC,
et al., Civil Action No. 20-2182 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle,
III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denies Plaintiff Samantha Meyers' motion to certify
under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 30, 2015, Meyers purchased furniture from Defendants IKEA US
Retail LLC and IKEA North America Services LLC ("IKEA") that is
subject to a recall announced by IKEA in coordination with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). She brings the
putative class action against IKEA under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), for violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73
Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 201-1 et seq., and for negligence.
IKEA, a major retail chain headquartered in Pennsylvania, designs
and sells furniture. On June 28, 2016, IKEA announced, in
connection with CPSC, a voluntary recall for 29 million chests and
dressers, including the MALM dresser line, after learning about
multiple deaths and injuries from tip-over incidents involving
these chests and dressers.
The recall advised consumers to stop using the recalled products
immediately and to put them in a place without child-access. It
offered a full refund to consumers who purchased chests and
dressers manufactured between January 2002 and June 2016 and
partial store credit to consumers who purchased chests and dressers
manufactured prior to January 2002. For consumers who did not want
to return their purchase, the recall offered a free wall-anchoring
kit that would prevent tip-over incidents and free installation of
the kit by IKEA employees. The recall described how consumers could
obtain refunds or wall-anchoring kits and contact IKEA for
additional information.
Before announcing the 2016 recall, IKEA entered into a corrective
action plan ("CAP") with the CPSC on June 15, 2016. The CAP covers
all MALM and non-MALM chests and dressers in specified sizes that
do not comply with safety performance requirements. After learning
about more injuries and another death from a dresser tip-over, IKEA
re-announced the recall on Nov. 21, 2017 which subjected 17.3
million dressers to the recall and again instructed consumers to
"immediately stop using any recalled chest or dresser that is not
properly anchored to the wall and place it in an area that children
cannot access." The 2017 recall again provided information on how
to contact IKEA to obtain a refund or a wall-anchoring kit. IKEA
continues to implement the recall, and customers can still return
or get free assistance in anchoring furniture that is subject to
the recall.
Meyers alleges that IKEA was negligent and deceptive in how it
planned and implemented the 2016 recall. She claims that IKEA tried
to limit the recall's participation rate, in part, by intentionally
failing to notify affected customers and confusing customers with
unclear messaging about the recall.
Meyers claims that IKEA violated the UTPCPL by failing to notify
the Plaintiffs of the recall and failing to comply with its terms.
She also asserts that IKEA carried out the recall negligently.
Unlike her claim under the UTPCPL, Meyers' negligence claim is not
limited to the substantive law of Pennsylvania.
Meyers proposes a class that consists of every IKEA customer in the
United States and its territories: (1) who had no notice of the
recall prior to May 6, 2020; (2) who possesses at least one IKEA
chest or dresser subject to the recall at the time of class notice;
and (3) for whom IKEA had an email address as of Oct. 7, 2022.
Meyers argues that this is an ascertainable class because it relies
on four objective criteria: (1) whether IKEA has an email address
on file for the proposed class member; (2) whether IKEA has a
record of sending an email notice of the recall to that email
address; (3) whether the proposed class member was aware of the
recall prior to the filing of this lawsuit; and (4) whether the
proposed class member still possesses a recalled dresser.
IKEA counters that the Plaintiff's proposed method would impose a
serious administrative burden.
Judge Bartle states that before a class can be certified, a
plaintiff must first establish an ascertainable class that can be
defined using objective criteria and determined using reliable and
administratively feasible methods. An ascertainable class may be
certified only if the plaintiff can satisfy the four requirements
of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
In addition to the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must
also satisfy one of the requirements under Rule 23(b). Meyers seeks
to certify a class only under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits class
certification if the court finds that the questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. The party seeking certification bears the burden of
establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Judge Bartle concludes that Meyer's proposed class does not satisfy
the threshold ascertainability requirement. Although he finds that
Meyers has demonstrated numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequate representation, the four Rule 23(a) factors, she has not
shown that her proposed class satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements of predominance and superiority. He denies yers's
motion for class certification.
Without class certification, the individual claim of Samantha
Meyers related to her purchases of recalled furniture, totaling
$328, does not satisfy the necessary amount in controversy under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Accordingly, Judge Bartle dismisses this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2bn4xps from Leagle.com.
INFINITY PAINTING: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Perez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. INFINITY PAINTING, CO., INC., and FRANK NANI,
Case No. 160841/2022 (N.Y. Super. Ct., New York Cty., Dec. 20,
2022), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours
compensation, and failure to provide unform maintenance pay owed to
the Plaintiff.
The Defendants have violated provisions of NYLL, as well as
applicable regulations by maintaining a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours
per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all
hours worked, including, failing to pay the lawful minimum wage
rate, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in any given week, "spread of hours" compensation, and
failure to provide unform maintenance pay. The Defendants have also
failed to preserve records required for properly calculating the
wages due to Plaintiffs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed in the Defendants' painting company to
perform work at numerous locations in New York and New Jersey.
Infinity Painting, Co., Inc. is engaged in the general construction
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jenny S. Brejt, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street 7th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Phone: (212) 943-9080
Email: Jbrejt@vandallp.com
INTRUSION INC: Class Settlement Deal in Celeste Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CELESTE,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated GEORGE
NEELY, ET AL., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTRUSION INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-SDJ
(E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sean D. Jordan entered an order:
1. The Court finally approves the proposed settlement
agreement, as fair, reasonable, and adequate under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Court finally certifies a class of:
"persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Intrusion, Inc. common stock between October 14, 2020, and
August 26, 2021, both dates inclusive, and were damaged
thereby."
The certified class excludes: (a) Defendants; (b)
Intrusion, Inc.'s officers, directors, and affiliates, at
all relevant times; (c) Intrusion. Inc.'s employee
retirement or benefit plan(s) and their participants or
beneficiaries to the extent they purchased or acquired
Intrusion, Inc. stock through any such plan(s); (d) any
entity in which Defendants have or had controlling
interest; (e) immediate family members of any excluded
person; (f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
or assigns of any excluded person or entity; and (g) all
those who submit timely and valid requests for exclusion.
3. The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims in this
action between the class and Defendants.
4. The Court approves the parties' proposed allocation plan
as a fair and reasonable method of allocating the
settlement fund among class members.
5. The Court awards class counsel $1,083,332.00 in attorney's
fees and $35,216.89 in expenses. The Court awards lead
Plaintiff Andrew Bronstein $5,000.00 for expenses.
Bronstein and class counsel may recover reasonable
expenses incurred during the litigation. Bronstein
requests $5,000.00 for the considerable time
(approximately 40 hours) he invested in the case
communicating with counsel, reviewing documents, and
participating in settlement negotiations.
The Court agrees that Bronstein invested considerable time
and effort to this case and awards Bronstein the requested
recovery of $5,000. The award is below what courts have
awarded in other class action cases.
In this consolidated class action arising from alleged securities
violations, the named parties have agreed to settle the case for
$3,250,000.00. No objections to the proposed settlement or valid
requests for exclusion have been submitted.
After full consideration, the Court concludes that the proposed
settlement should be approved and that the Lead Plaintiff and class
counsel should be awarded attorney's fees and expenses.
Bronstein and Intrusion have agreed to settle the claims in this
consolidated class action for $3,250,000.00. The proposed
settlement arises from more than a year of litigation surrounding
Intrusion's alleged efforts to artificially boost its share price
through misrepresentations regarding a new cybersecurity product:
"Intrusion Shield." After obtaining preliminary approval of the
proposed class settlement on
August 17, 2022, Bronstein and class counsel now seek final
approval and an award of attorney's fees and expenses.
In the summer of 2020, it developed a new product that would
supposedly "revolutionize the [network security] industry."
Intrusion described this new product, Intrusion Shield, as blocking
cyberthreats more effectively than existing technologies on the
market because it combined state-of-of the-art artificial
intelligence tools with a proprietary database of 2.7 billion
malicious IP addresses.
Intrusion is a publicly traded cybersecurity company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W7WQv1 at no extra charge.[CC]
INVESTMENTS 41: Popova Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIKTORIIA POPOVA and DARA
LAMDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. INVESTMENTS 41 LLC d/b/a BLACK MARKET MIAMI, and ERICK PASSO,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-23260-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs move the Coutt to conditionally certify the following
collectives of similarly situated Servers and Bartenders:
-- Tip Notice Collective
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for the Defendants
during the three years preceding this lawsuit who did not
receive proper notice from Defendants that they would be
taking a tip credit toward the required federal minimum
wage;"
-- 80/20 Collective
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for the Defendants
during the three years preceding this lawsuit who were
required to spend more than 20% of any workweek performing
non-tipped duties and side work and did not receive the
full applicable minimum wage for this work;"
-- Substantial Side Work Collective
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for the Defendants
on or after December 28, 2021, who were required to spend
more than 30 continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and
side work during any shift;"
-- Tip Disgorgement Collective
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for the Defendants
after March 23, 2018, who were required to share any of
their tips with Supervisors, Managers, or Team Leaders.
The Plaintiffs also contend there are non-public spaces at the
restaurant accessible by Servers and Bartenders where Defendants
could display notice of this lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court requiring Defendants
to conspicuously display Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice and Consent to
Join Forms notifying all current Servers and Bartenders of this
lawsuit and their opportunity to join, and further requiring
Defendants to file a Notice of Compliance with an attached
photograph showing that the notice has been conspicuously posted.
The Defendants operate the Black Market Miami restaurant and bar
located at 168 SE 1st Street, Store 1A, Miami, Florida. During the
past 3 years Defendants have employed dozens of Servers and
Bartenders who perform substantially similar duties at the
restaurant.
These Servers and Bartenders, however, have been denied applicable
federal minimum wages and tips during various workweeks. On October
7, 2022, Popova filed her collective/class action lawsuit seeking
to recover all minimum wages that were unlawfully withheld from
herself and other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders.
On December 16, 2022, Popova and Lamden filed their Amended
Class/Collective Action Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury
Trial. The Plaintiffs also filed their Consents to Sue Under the
FLSA on December 16, 2022.
Popova worked for Defendants as a Server from on or about January
1, 2022, until on or about August 14, 2022. During Popova's
employment, Defendant, Passo, was the restaurant's owner and
oversaw its operations.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PA5UGx
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
catherine@USAEmploymentLawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul F. Penichet, Esq.
Adam Schultz, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Counsel for Defendants
One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 3500
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 577-7655
E-mail: Paul.penichet@jacksonlewis.com
Adam.schultz@jacksonlewis.com
IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Iris Energy Limited (NASDAQ: IREN), and certain
officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed
under 22-cv-07273, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Iris ordinary shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about November 17, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b)
Iris securities between November 17, 2021 and November 1, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Iris
ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the Company's IPO, and/or Iris securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 13, 2023 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Iris touts itself as a leading owner and operator of
institutional-grade, highly efficient, proprietary Bitcoin mining
data centers powered by 100% renewable energy.
Iris's Bitcoin mining operations purportedly generate revenue by
earning Bitcoin through a combination of block rewards and
transaction fees from the operation of specialized computing
equipment called "miners" or "Bitcoin miners" and exchanging these
Bitcoin for fiat currencies such as U.S. dollars or Canadian
dollars on a daily basis.
Iris has three wholly-owned special purpose vehicles, referred to
as "Non-Recourse SPV 1", "Non-Recourse SPV 2", and "Non-Recourse
SPV 3" (collectively, the "Non-Recourse SPVs"), each of which was
incorporated for the specific purpose of financing certain of the
Bitcoin miners operated by the Company.
On October 25, 2021, Iris filed a registration statement on Form
F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on November 16, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On or about November 17, 2021, Iris conducted the IPO, issuing
approximately 8.27 million of its ordinary shares to the public at
the Offering price of $28 per ordinary share for approximate
proceeds to the Company of $215 million, before expenses, and after
applicable underwriting discounts and commissions.
On November 18, 2021, Iris filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together
with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of Iris's Bitcoin
miners, owned through its Non-Recourse SPVs, were unlikely to
produce sufficient cash flow to service their respective debt
financing obligations; (ii) accordingly, Iris's use of equipment
financing agreements to procure Bitcoin miners was not as
sustainable as Defendants had represented; (iii) the foregoing was
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
On November 2, 2022, Iris issued a press release disclosing, among
other things, that "[c]ertain equipment (i.e., Bitcoin miners)
owned by [Non-Recourse SPV 2 and Non-Recourse SPV 3] currently
produce insufficient cash flow to service their respective debt
financing obligations and have a current market value well below
the principal amount of the relevant loans" and that
"[r]estructuring discussions with the lender remain ongoing."
On this news, Iris's ordinary share price fell $0.51 per share, or
15.04%, to close at $2.88 per share on November 2, 2022—a nearly
90% decline from the Offering price.
As of the time the Complaint was filed, Iris's ordinary shares
continue to trade significantly below the $28 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, 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]
IRONWORKS COLLECTIVE: Gallard Sues Over Cannabis Products' False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTI GALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IRONWORKS COLLECTIVE INC., and STIIIZY LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV38021 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment and for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Defendants Ironworks Collective Inc. and Stiiizy LLC make, sell,
and market the "Stiiizy" brand, including "preroll" products. A
"preroll" consists of cannabis that has been "rolled" in paper so
that it can be smoked out of the box (as opposed to "loose"
cannabis, such as flower, which a consumer must roll into a joint
or consume in some other way). As required by California Department
of Cannabis Control regulations, each of Defendants' products
include a label that purportedly identifies the product's content
of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary active ingredient in
cannabis. For Defendants' products, the labels include the THC
content expressed as a percentage. The THC content declared on the
label of Defendants' cannabis products is typically very high (in
excess of 40% for infused flower pre-rolls). Because cannabis
consumers generally prefer and are willing to pay more for high-THC
cannabis products, declaring that their products have a very high
THC content allows Defendants to charge premium rates for their
cannabis products, says the suit.
However, the Defendants are systematically overstating the THC
content to deceive consumers, including Plaintiff, into thinking
that the effects of their prerolls are more potent than they truly
are, says the complaint. This alleged conduct is false and
misleading and violates DCC regulations, and California law, the
complaint asserts.
Ironworks Collective Inc. and Stiiizy LLC are cannabis companies
based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
JAKO ENTERPRISES: Gamble Sues to Recover Underpayment
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gamble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JAKO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-10732
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2022), is brought to recover underpayment
caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for the
Plaintiff in violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and all other Hourly Workers an
overtime rate that failed to calculate their commissions, as
required by law. The Defendant has compensated Plaintiff and all
other Hourly Workers in New York on a bi-weekly basis. Despite
being manual workers, Defendant failed to properly pay Plaintiff
and other Hourly Workers in New York their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were
earned. In this regard, Defendant failed to provide timely wages to
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Hourly Workers in New
York.
The Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged
in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with
respect to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and
pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to, willfully
failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective, the correct overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Jimmy Jazz as an Hourly Worker from
December 2021 through October 2022.
Jimmy Jazz sells retail clothing and fashion accessories throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
JET SET KID: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jet Set Kid LLC. The
case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Jet Set Kid LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10650 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jet Set Kid LLC doing business as Jet Set Candy --
https://jetsetcandy.com/ -- offers a growing range of travel charms
in sterling silver, gold vermeil and solid gold.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Brinson Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY BRINSON, et al. v.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00501-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. determining that this action is maintained as a class
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3):
"All persons, firms, and/or legal entities: (1) residing,
maintaining a place of business, owning property, and/or
employed within the geographic boundary of the one-mile
radius evacuation zone, as established by the Orange
County Office of Emergency Management and as illustrated
on the attached map, between October 29, 2020 and
November 2, 2020, and (2) who have sustained legally
cognizable damages arising or resulting from the train
derailment and toxic chemical spill that occurred on
October 29, 2020 in or near Mauriceville, Orange County,
Texas;"
2. appointing Plaintiffs Jay Brinson, Keely Strother, and
Scott Lawson as class representatives;
3. appointing John R. Fabry of The Carlson Law Firm, P.C. and
Brent W. Coon of Brent Coon & Associates as Class Counsel;
and
4. for any further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly
entitled.
The superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is met here, where it
would be a significant waste of judicial resources to require the
approximately 600 individual members of the proposed class to
separately prosecute their individual claims, which range in value
from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, the lawsuit says.
The case seeks to recover damages arising from the derailment of a
train operated by Defendant, Kansas City Southern Railway ("KCSR"
or "Defendant"). On October 29, 2020, the Defendant KCSR was
operating a train carrying mixed freight, including tank cars
loaded with hazardous chemicals.
The Train Derailment forced the mandatory evacuation of
approximately 600 individuals, including Plaintiffs, as well as the
closure of numerous businesses, schools, and roadways within the
one-mile radius of the derailment and chemical spill site (the
"Evacuation Zone").
The evacuees were forced to find and pay for their own
accommodations outside of the Evacuation Zone, and businesses
located therein were forced to close, freezing commercial
operations. In addition, numerous residents and business owners,
within the Evacuation Zone, sustained damages to personal property
from spoilage as a result of the Train Derailment, which also
damaged electrical power lines in the area, leaving some residents
without power.
As a result of the evacuation and shelter in place orders issued by
government officials in response to the Train Derailment, the
clinic was forced to remain closed for two days, during which time
Plaintiff Strother was forced to be out of work.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FGuZLd at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Fabry, Esq.
Luis Muñoz, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 IH-35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Telephone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com
LMunoz@carlsonattorneys.com
KASPERSKY LAB: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV26119 was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Dec. 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09157 to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute.
Kaspersky Lab, Inc. -- https://www.kaspersky.com/ -- develops and
distributes information security software solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4000
Fax: (310) 312-4224
Email: bseiling@manatt.com
KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL: Spencer Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Arlene Spencer, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL GROUP PLLC
d/b/a KELSEY-SEYBOLD CLINIC and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, Case No. 2022-75017 was removed from the Harris County,
Texas District Court, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on Dec. 15, 2022, and assigned Case No.
4:22-cv-04354.
The Plaintiff brings putative class claims for: unconscionability
of contract (against Defendant Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group PLLC
d/b/a Kelsey-Seybold Clinic); fraud by non-disclosure (against all
Defendants); and alleged violations of certain sections of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") (against all
Defendants).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James A. Reeder, Jr., Esq.
Andrew M. Ryngaert, Esq.
JONES DAY
717 Texas Street, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 832-239-3939
Facsimile: 832-239-3600
Email: jareeder@jonesday.com
aryngaert@jonesday.com
- and -
Scott E. Bayzle, Esq.
Stephen V. Carey, Esq.
Adam C. Setzer, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-828-0564
Facsimile: 919-834-4564
Email: scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com
stevecarey@parkerpoe.com
adamsetzer@parkerpoe.com
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Brake Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexandra Brake, individually and on behalf of
her son, T.B., and all others similarly situated v. Keystone Rural
Health Center doing business as: Keystone Health, Case No. 22-03708
was removed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec.
20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02025-CCC to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
Keystone Health -- https://keystonehealth.org/ -- is a
full-service, family-centered, primary care facility providing
quality, affordable, accessible health care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Jamisen A Etzel, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jason Rathod, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Nicholas A Migliaccio, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Phone: (513) 852-2626
Fax: (513) 929-0303
Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Hoos Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathleen Hoos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Keystone Rural Health Center doing
business as: Keystone Health, Case No. 22-03709 was removed from
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02023-CCC to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute.
Keystone Health -- https://keystonehealth.org/ -- is a
full-service, family-centered, primary care facility providing
quality, affordable, accessible health care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
Michael J Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Nathan I. Reiter, Esq.
THE JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Jamisen A Etzel, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Phone: (513) 852-2626
Fax: (513) 929-0303
Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Priego Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samuel Priego, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Keystone Rural Health Center doing
business as: Keystone Health, Case No. 22-03653 was removed from
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02024-CCC to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
Keystone Health -- https://keystonehealth.org/ -- is a
full-service, family-centered, primary care facility providing
quality, affordable, accessible health care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Phone: (513) 852-2626
Fax: (513) 929-0303
Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
KHAYLIE HAZEL: Court Limits Discovery in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenniffer Cabrera, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that in Andrew
Martin v. Khaylie Hazel Yearning LLC, No. 3:22-CV-176-SA-JMV, 2022
WL 17573424, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 9, 2022), plaintiff originally
sought the identity of the members of the classes and to determine
the amount of damages the identified members are entitled to
recover. (i.e., putting the cart before the horse?)
By way of background, Plaintiff filed his complaint seeking to
certify two nationwide classes. Defendant did not answer, so
default judgment was entered. SMH… Plaintiff requested leave to
conduct class certification and damages discovery.
The Court found that Plaintiff sought discovery beyond the relevant
and proportional issues pertinent to a decision on class
certification. At the court's request, Plaintiff then supplemented
his motion requesting itemized discovery including subpoenas of
Defendant and third parties.
The Court found that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery as to
damages unless and until a class is certified. The Court also
limited the discovery for the prior two-year period and to the
factors necessary for having the class certified.
As to Defendant, the Court held that Plaintiff is permitted a
30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant's manager and incorporator as
specified in the subpoena to include:
-- call logs in her possession relating to the solicitation of
sales or promotions of Defendants' CBD oil products,
-- discovering the identity and contact information of any third
party engaged on behalf of Defendant to solicit or promote sales of
its products via telephone, and
-- the types of information maintained by Defendant which could be
reviewed to ascertain the identity and contact information of
putative class members and/or whether a person otherwise meets a
purported class definition.
As to third parties, the court allowed up to five (5) subpoenas for
production of their respective call logs, and an example of such
information, if any, maintained by such third party that could be
reviewed to ascertain whether a person meets a purported class
definition and their identity.
Takeaway:
Before class certification, discovery can include call logs,
identity and contact information of any third party engaged to
solicit or promote sales and the types of information maintained by
Defendant to ascertain the identity and contact of the class.
However, damages, specific identity and contact information is
premature until a class is certified. [GN]
L BRANDS: Agreed to Settle 401(k) Class Action for $2.75 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Prance-Miles, writing for Global Cosmetics News, reports
that L Brands has agreed to pay US$2.75 million settlement as part
of a class action lawsuit, relating to claims the company charged
unreasonable fees as well as making high-cost investments with
employee 401(k) funds, according to Top Class Actions.
THE DETAILS Former and current plan participants of L Brands'
401(k) claim that they lost money due to the company failing to
meet its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
L Brands is said to have allowed service providers to charge
unreasonable record-keeping and administrative expenses to the
plan, as well as allegedly selecting high-cost investments for the
plan, as opposed to better ones that would have resulted in better
plan performance.
THE WHY? The ERISA class action lawsuit claims, "Plaintiff and all
Plan participants suffered financial harm as a result of the Plan's
imprudent investment options and excessive fees, and were deprived
of the opportunity to invest in prudent options with reasonable
fees, among other injuries."
The settlement will benefit participants of L Brands' 401(k)
savings and retirement plan between November 23, 2014, and
September 20, 2022. [GN]
LA-Z-BOY: Carroll Sues Over Reporting Details of Visitors' Identity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED, a Michigan corporation; and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08961 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
19, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act as a result of the Defendant who
secretly report all the details of the visitors' identity, the
titles watched, and more without warning visitors or obtaining
their consent.
Whenever someone watches a video on www.la-z-boy.com (the
"Website"), Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook:
the visitor's identity, the titles watched, and more. When
Plaintiff watched videos on La-z-boy.com, Defendants disclosed
event data, which recorded and disclosed the video’s title and
URL, along with every time Plaintiff clicked a button to pause or
play the video. Alongside this event data, Defendants also
disclosed identifiers for Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr
cookies. In other words, Defendants did exactly what the VPPA
prohibits: they disclosed Plaintiff’s video viewing habits to a
third party. Given the nature of Defendants' business, visitors
would be shocked and appalled to know that Defendants secretly
disclose to Facebook all of key data regarding a visitors' viewing
habits.
The Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to
visitor expectations: indeed, a recent study conducted by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader
regarding digital privacy, found that: (1) nearly 9 in 10 adults
are "very concerned" about data privacy, and (2) 75% of adults are
unaware of the extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit
their personal data. By disclosing his event data and identifiers,
Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s personally identifiable
information (“PII”) to a third-party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited www.la-z-boy.com and watched a video.
The Defendant is a Michigan corporation that owns, operates, and/or
controls the Website, www.la-z-boy.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, 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
LARA INC: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaiyla Davis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LARA, INC., and ARMINA LEE, Case No.
2:22-cv-00152-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky., Dec. 16, 2022), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to seek a
declaratory judgment, monetary and liquidated damages, interest,
and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the
Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay proper minimum
and overtime compensation under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in some weeks while employed by
the Defendants within the past three years. Other Dancers also
regularly or occasionally worked over 40 hours in some weeks during
their employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff and other
Dancers are entitled to wages and compensation based on the
standard minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff and other
Dancers are entitled to 1.5x their regular hourly rate for hours
worked over 40 each week. Defendants knew or should have known that
the Plaintiff and other Dancers were working hours for which they
were not paid a lawful minimum wage or overtime premium. The
Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way
it paid the Plaintiff and other Dancers violated the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendants' club in Newport,
Kentucky, called Brass Ass Lounge as a Dancer from October of 2019
until April of 2021.
The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club that
does business as Brass Ass Lounge.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele Henry, Esq.
CRAIG HENRY PLC
401 West Main Street, Suite 1900
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 614-5962
Email: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com
- and -
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
LAUSON DRILLING: Davidson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Davidson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LAUSON DRILLING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02817
(N.D. Ill., May 27, 2022), is brought against Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, seeking a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime
compensation under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and other Traveling Employees regularly traveled to
job sites and remained there overnight. The Plaintiff and other
Traveling Employees traveled during normal business hours. The
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff for drive time during normal
working hours when the Plaintiff traveled to a job site. The
Defendant also did not pay other Traveling Employees for their
drive time during normal working hours when they traveled to a job
site. Due to the Defendant's practice of refusing to pay the
Plaintiff and other Traveling Employees for drive time during
normal working hours when traveling to a job site, the Plaintiff
and other Traveling Employees worked hours which went
uncompensated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Derrick Hand.
The Defendant maintains a website at
https://www.lausondrilling.com.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (800) 615-4946
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
LEARNING POST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Learning Post Of
Iowa, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Learning Post Of Iowa,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10617 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Learning Post -- https://learningposttoys.com/ -- is an
educational toy store.[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
LEFT LEAD LIQUORS: Boyll Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Boyll, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LEFT LEAD LIQUORS, LLC d/b/a ROLLERS SPIRITS, ROLLERS
PARTY SHOP, ROLLERS, ROLLERS DISCOUNT BEVERAGE, & WINE & CHEESE IF
YOU PLEASE; JOHN KELSEY, individually; and CAMILLE COPELAND,
individually, Case No. 9:22-cv-04520-BHH (D.S.C., Dec. 15, 2022),
is brought for payment of wages and for other relief under the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act and for actual damages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and all other similarly
situated employees, the proper amount (1.5 times the hourly rate)
for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or overtime hours
worked. The Defendants have violated the FLSA, by either a willful
violation of the FLSA or in reckless disregard of the FLSA and the
rights of the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2020 through
March of 2022 in various capacities.
The Defendants operate three retail liquor stores in Beaufort
County, South Carolina, doing business as Rollers Spirits, Rollers,
and Rollers Discount Beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Phone: 843.579.7373
Fax: 843.614.6417
Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
LENOX CORPORATION: Esparza Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lenox Corporation, et
al. The case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenox Corporation, a
Delaware corporation d/b/a Lenox.com, Does 1 through 25, Case No.
3:22-cv-09004 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute for
Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Lenox Corporation -- https://www.lenox.com/ -- is an American
manufacturing company that sells tableware, giftware, and
collectible products under the Lenox, Dansk, Reed & Barton, and
Gorham brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
LI HAI LLC: Wu Suit Seeks to Recover Helpers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
BAOGANG WU, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LI HAI LLC, d/b/a Noodle Topia, LI ZHAI,
FENG YU, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12956-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich.,
Dec. 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan
Consolidated Laws Chapter 408 and the Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act, Act 138 of 2014, seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid
wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, and/or attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 28, 2022 to
June 9, 2022 to work as a miscellaneous helper at Defendants'
business known as "Noodle Topia."
LI HAI LLC, d/b/a Noodle Topia, is a restaurant based in Madison
Heights, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
LYFT INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
approval.
The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be
submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of this
Order:
-- Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to
all putative Class Members.
-- Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion.
-- Filing deadline for incentive payment motion.
-- Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and
costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after
the filing of the motion for attorneys' fees and
incentive payments.
Filing deadline for final approval motion.
Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions.
The Plaintiffs purchased shares of Lyft Inc.'s common stock when
Lyft went public through an Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on
March 28, 2019.
The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action against Lyft and
certain of its officers and directors regarding representations in
Lyft's IPO Registration Statement.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement
misrepresented and failed to disclose (1) the potential for 25
reputational damage and legal liability due to sexual assault
allegations against drivers; (2) that Lyft's market share was
shrinking because of a price war with Uber; and (3) safety issues
with Lyft's bike sharing program.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action
for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
In August 2021, the Court certified a class of "all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Lyft issued and traceable to the IPO Registration Statement."
The Court appointed Rick Keiner as Class Representative and Block &
Leviton LLP as Class Counsel.
Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as "all persons
and entities who 1 purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Lyft issued and traceable to the IPO Registration Statement
(between March 28, 2019, and August 19, 2019)."
Settlement Benefits: Lyft will make a $25 million non-reversionary.
The settlement fund includes notice and administration expenses,
taxes and tax expenses, 10 Court-approved attorneys' fees and
costs, any award to Lead Plaintiff as allowed under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and any other
Court-approved fees or expenses.
Lyft offers mobility as a service, ride-hailing, vehicles for hire,
motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food
delivery in the United States and select cities in Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jggWEV at no extra charge.[CC]
M.D.C. DIAMONDS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.D.C. Diamonds
International, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. M.D.C. Diamonds
International, Inc.., Case No. 1:22-cv-07630-NRM-JRC (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
M.D.C. Diamonds International, Inc. -- https://www.mdcdiamonds.com/
-- is a jewelry store in New York City, a diamond specialist with a
selection of custom & premade jewelry, bridal sets & loose
stones.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
M.U. CONSULTANTS: Donat Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Donat, Micah Gilliam, and other similarly situated
individuals v. M.U. Consultants LLC, and Usman Tanveer,
individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02365-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 20,
2022), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked more than 40 regular hours per week. However,
the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs for their services at any
rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law. The
Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track the
number of hours worked by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants knew about
the Plaintiff's number of working hours for the week. Therefore,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages
in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to pay
overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate
for every hour that they worked over 40, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were hired to perform office work and to coordinate
the activities of Covid-19 testing technicians.
The Defendant is a for-profit organization providing health-related
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MAINE OXY: $6.3MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that welding
supply maker Maine Oxy Acetylene Supply Co. received final federal
court approval for a $6.3 million class settlement with workers who
say they were forced to give up their company stock at a steep
discount.
The settlement covers about 100 people and resolves claims that
workers were forced to sell the Maine Oxy stock in their employee
stock ownership plan for $134 per share when the company came under
new ownership in 2012. This deal paid them about $3.3 million for
their collective 49% stake in the company. [GN]
MARINE CREDIT: Monroe Seeks to Certify Mortgage Loan Rep Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MONROE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARINE CREDIT
UNION, Case No. (E.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order certifying a collective action pursuant to section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
"The six hourly-paid, non-exempt Mortgage Loan
Representatives employed by Defendant within the two years
immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint who
recorded a meal period and/or rest break of short duration of
less than 30 consecutive minutes in Defendant’s electronic
timekeeping system and who filed their Consent to Join Forms
with the Court."
The parties, through negotiation, reached a settlement in this case
on November 11, 2022. In connection with this settlement, the
parties agreed to certification of the proposed FLSA Collective, as
defined below, for settlement purposes
only.
The parties further jointly request an Order designating the Named
Plaintiff, Robert Monroe, as representative for the FLSA Collective
and an Order designating Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as counsel for the
FLSA Collective.
Marine Credit is a member-owned financial cooperative headquartered
in La Crosse, Wisconsin, which serves more than 90,000 members
across Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hBQe9g at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith E. Kopplin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Pabst Boiler House
1243 N. 10th Street, Suite 200
Milwaukee, WI 53205
Telephone: (414) 239-6400
E-mail: keith.kopplin@ogletree.com
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Bustamante Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriela Bustamante, on behalf of herself and
all "aggrieved employees" pursuant to Labor Code v. MARRIOTT HOTEL
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 22CV400968 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Dec. 16, 2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-08929.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 7 causes of action: failure to
pay all wages due; failure to provide rest periods; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages due at separation of employment;
violation of Cal. Business and Professions Code Section 17200; and
enforcement of the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004, Cal.
Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Tyler Z. Bernstein, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: 714.513.5100
Facsimile: 714.513.5130
Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
tbernstein@sheppardmullin.com
MASTERCARD INC: Hogan Lovells Discusses UK Class Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Heaton, Esq., of Hogan Lovells, in an article for
Lexology, reports that in the UK, since 2015, there has been a
statutory class action regime allowing full opt-out or opt-in class
actions for claim for breach of competition law. Competition claims
require approval (or certification) before proceedings: the first
two claims failed and so the regime was slow to take off. However,
since the UK Supreme Court judgment in Merricks v Mastercard at the
end of 2020 signalled that the threshold for certification is lower
than many had expected, the regime of filings has picked up pace.
Nearly 2 years later, 27 class actions have been issued, 18 of them
since the Supreme Court judgment. Of these claims, 11 have been
certified, 2 more have been permitted to proceed as opt-in claims
only, one was withdrawn, and the remainder await a decision.
Competition class actions
The statutory regime for competition class actions requires a
collective proceedings order (CPO) to be made before a claim
proceeds. This is the equivalent of class certification in other
regimes. For a CPO to be made, the proposed class representative
must be "authorised" and the claims must be "eligible" for
inclusion in the collective proceedings. The Competition Appeal
Tribunal, which hears such claims, must also determine if the claim
should proceed as an opt-out or opt-in class.
For the class representative to be authorised it must be just and
reasonable for that person to act as a representative. In practice
this has caused little difficulty in the cases to date and
representatives have included consumer organisations, special
purpose vehicles, and individuals. The only questions that have
been raised concerning whether a proposed representative ought to
be authorised is whether the representative's funding arrangements
are adequate. The Tribunal has taken a very pragmatic approach to
these issues, allowing changes to be made to funding arrangements
to cure any problems. It is clearly mindful that a workable funding
mechanisms is a necessity for the regime to succeed and indeed the
fact that London has a buoyant litigation funding market has been
key to the rapid development of class actions.
Nearly all of the certification battles have so far been fought
about "eligibility". Claims are eligible for inclusion in
collective proceedings if they are brought on behalf of an
identifiable class, raise the same, similar or related issues of
fact or law and are suitable to be brought in collective
proceedings. The Supreme Court made clear in Merricks that it views
this as a low threshold. This is primarily the result of two very
significant aspects of the regime and the Supreme Court's
interpretation of them.
The regime provides for awards of aggregate damages, which means
that damages can be awarded without considering the loss of
individual class members. The Supreme Court has interpreted this as
not just a tool to simplify quantification, but as applying also to
proving causation and establishing liability on a class wide basis.
The result is that many potential objections to certification based
on the individual circumstances of class members have fallen away.
In addition, the Supreme Court has adopted a relatively low
standard for establishing common issues on a class wide basis
(taken from Canadian case law) of merely requiring that there is a
realistic and plausible method grounded in the facts. This has led
to the acceptance for the purposes of certification of top down
methods of assessing aggregate damages proposed by experts – even
if they were accepted by the court not to be optimal.
Second, the Supreme Court found that whether a claim is suitable
for inclusion is a matter of relative suitability, not an absolute
threshold. In other words, the question is, whether it is
relatively more suitable for the claim to be brought as part of a
class action than as an individual claim? The result of this is
that any difficulties that a claim would face if brought as an
individual claim are not viewed as a good objection to its being
brought as a class action.
The Supreme Court also held that the test for certification of an
opt-out class does not involve an assessment of the merits of the
claim. The Tribunal will not entertain a mini trial of the issues
at the hearing of the CPO application. The lack of a merits test
has meant that it has become common for defendants to bring
application to strike out the claim at the same time as the CPO
application so that issues going to the merits can be heard. To
date no such application has been successful.
Nevertheless, it should not be thought that potential class actions
will not be scrutinised. This is illustrated by the recent judgment
in respect of two competing applications for certification of
opt-out class actions concerning the FX market2. The judgment found
that both claims were at risk of being struck out because they did
not plead causation adequately and refused to certify either of
them as an opt-out class because they were not sufficiently strong
claims. The class representatives were instead given the option of
reformulating the claims as opt-out class actions. Indeed the only
other occasion since Merricks on which a CPO application failed was
when the Tribunal favoured a rival opt-in class action over an
opt-out one.
The FX case was also important as the first time a carriage dispute
has been addressed. The tribunal refused to determine the carriage
dispute prior to the certification hearing, forcing both would-be
class representatives to incur the cost of preparing the claim and
applying for certification. This approach will impose a significant
costs risk on class representatives and their funders when carriage
disputes arise and will be a concern for claimant lawyers.
The future
The approach to certification signalled in Merricks is clearly
helpful to claimants. But the judgment in the FX case shows that
there is scrutiny of class actions at the certification stage. In
any event, the lower threshold applied in Merricks may simply store
up problems for the future. In adopting a relatively low bar, there
are issues fundamental to the viability of claims which the
Tribunal is expressly leaving to be addressed at trial. Moreover,
the Tribunal has more than once referred to its power to revisit
certification at a later stage as the case develops.
It seems, therefore, that the price that claimants may have to pay
for a lower certification threshold is that certification is not a
guarantee of likely future success. This will clearly have an
impact on the dynamics of such cases going forward in respect of
issues such as settlement. [GN]
MATTERPORT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lynch Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, v.
MATTERPORT, INC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
-- The motion as to all claims against individual defendants,
as well as to plaintiff's SAMP Act and Section 17500
putative class claims (Counts II and IV) against
Matterport, Inc., is granted.
-- But the motion as to the "multi-state" and "injunctive"
putative class claims (Counts I and VI) is denied as moot.
-- The motion as to all other challenged putative class and
individual claims against Matterport, Inc. is denied.
-- The Defendants' request for judicial notice is not relied
upon and is denied as moot. The answer is due in 14
calendar days.
-- The Plaintiff's passing request for leave to amend is
denied.
-- By January 3, 2023, at noon, the plaintiff may again seek
leave to amend the dismissed claims by motion noticed on a
normal 35-day calendar.
Finally, the defendants argue that plaintiff has no Article III
standing at all because his MSP business allegedly suffered an
injury, not Lynch in his personal capacity. But Lynch alleges that
"he applied to be an MSP and, thus, he was the one deceived."
Ther Defendant market "3D cameras that create 3D models of
real-world places, which have many potential applications,
including in connection with real estate sales." Matterport also
offers services such as software for 3D image manipulation and
cloud storage.
On March 28, 2022, Lynch filed suit in the Superior Court of
California against Matterport, Inc. and seven members of its board
of directors. On April 13, 2022, he amended his complaint, and on
June 23, 2022, Matterport removed his action to this federal court.
In his amended complaint, Lynch asserts claims on behalf of himself
as well as three putative classes of individuals who became MSPs:
(i) a "multi-state" class for claims under California's
Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan (SAMP) Act and the
cognate laws of other jurisdictions (Count I);
(ii) a "national" class for claims under California's SAMP
Act (Count II), Section 17200, et seq., of the
California Business and Professions Code (Count III),
Section 17500, et seq., of the California Business and
Professions Code (Count IV), and the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing (Count V); and
(iii) an "injunctive relief" class seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief untethered to any claim (Count VI)
Lynch seeks damages, recission of contract, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and fees and costs. 1
Matterport operates as a software company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G1MAi7 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2918: EUPs Seek Consideration Whether to Seal Material
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the End-User Plaintiffs ("EUPs") submit an administrative
motion to consider whether another party's material should be
sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f).
EUPs are required to file these documents under seal pursuant to
the Stipulated Protective Order, because materials contained
therein are derived from documents and other information designated
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by the Defendants and
certain third parties which produced documents or data pursuant to
Class Plaintiffs' subpoena.
Sealing is sought for the information in the Errata to the
Declaration of Janet S. Netz, Ph.D., in Support of End-User
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification identified a:s
chart below:
-- Material/Document Page No. Designating Party
-- Netz Decl. -- gray highlighting Defendants
-- Errata to Netz Decl., Exhibit 15 Defendants
-- Errata to Netz Decl., Exhibit 36 Subpoenaed third
parties
Previously and in connection with their class certification motion,
EUPs have conditionally filed these materials under seal.
Errata does not change the nature and scope of the materials sought
be sealed. The Defendants and certain third parties have already
filed declarations in support of EUPs' administrative motions,
requesting said materials to remain under seal.
All actions in the MDL share complex factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008
through at least April 2016. The record indicates that discovery is
likely to be international in scope and will include a significant
number of nonparties.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jd4aqL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
- and -
William V. Reiss, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com
MENZIES AVIATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Amaya Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dora Patricia Amaya, v.
Menzies Aviation USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-05915-MCS-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling
order as follows:
Event Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 18, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): July 24, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): August 21, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: October 23, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion for Class April 10, 2023
Certification:
-- Deadline to File an Opposition to May 1, 2023
the Motion for Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply in Support May 22, 2023
of the Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Hearing Date on Motion for Class June 12, 2023
Certification:
Menzies was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes arranging passenger transportation such as airline and bus
ticket offices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hAeVTk at no extra charge.[CC]
MERCY HEALTH: Dames Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kim Dames, David Armstrong, Myra Davis,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Mercy
Health, Mercy Hospitals East Communities d/b/a Mercy Hospital
Washington, Case No. 19AB-CC00264 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Franklin County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01360-NCC to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor.
Mercy Health -- https://www.mercy.com/ -- formerly Catholic Health
Partners, is a Catholic health care system with locations in Ohio
and Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd C. Werts, Esq.
LEAR WERTS LLP - Columbia
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: (573) 875-1991
Fax: (573) 279-0024
Email: werts@learwerts.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Fink, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis
One US Bank Plaza
505 N. 7th Street, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Fax: (314) 552-7000
Email: jfink@thompsoncoburn.com
MHM HEALTH: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Lewis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY LEWIS v. MHM HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order that the following schedule
shall apply to only the class certification issues in this case,
and will be modified only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances:
1. Scheduling Plan
This case has been assigned to Track 3 (Complex).
2. All motions for joinder of additional parties or
amendment of pleadings shall be filed no later than one
month after this Court issues its decision on Defendant's
pending motion to dismiss.
3. Disclosure shall proceed in the following manner:
(a) The parties shall make all disclosures required by
Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than
September 29, 2022.
(b) The presumptive limits of 10 depositions per side as
set forth in Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., and
25 interrogatories per party as set forth in Rule
33(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall apply.
(c) The parties shall complete all discovery relating to
conditional class certification issues no later than
May 19, 2023.
4. This case was referred to alternative dispute resolution
on October 28, 2022, and that reference shall terminate
on January 27, 2023.
5. Briefs supporting or opposing conditional class
certification must be filed no later than June 9, 2023.
Any response shall be filed no later than July 7, 2023.
Any reply shall be filed no later than July 21, 2023.
Pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act Expense and Delay
Reduction Plan and the Differentiated Case Management Program of
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Missouri, and the Rule 16 Conference held on September 8, 2022.
MHM Health is a healthcare company. It offers medical, dental, and
forensic.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G3si84 at no extra charge.[CC]
NAR: Bid to Exclude Schulman's Opinion Testimony Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT,
RYAN HENDRICKSON, JEROD BREIT, SCOTT TRUPIANO, AND JEREMY KEEL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (NAR), REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.,
OMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES,
LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order that the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Merits
Opinion Testimony of Dr. Craig T. Schulman is denied.
The Defendants state that "any damages calculation must account for
any benefits Plaintiffs derived from the allegedly unlawful conduct
as well as their alleged damages," but that Schulman "failed to
account for benefits realized by Plaintiffs."
For example, the Defendants contend the commission rules benefitted
"many purported class members who sold homes during the class
period and also purchased homes."
The Court finds that Schulman's causation and damages opinions are
relevant. The Plaintiffs argue in part that the class members
"received no 'benefit' or 'windfall' because most homebuyers would
not have used buyer broker services absent Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct." This argument has support in the record.
Schulman explains that "buyer's agents are used in few as 1% to 5%
of real estate sales in Australia."
The Defendants may challenge Schulman's causation and damages
opinions on cross-examination, but their arguments for exclusion
are rejected. For these reasons, and for the additional reasons
stated by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Schulman's causation and
damages opinions are relevant.
In 1990, Schulman received a Ph.D. in Economics from Texas A&M
University. Schulman is a Director of Berkeley Research Group, LLC
("BRG"). BRG provides various services, including expert testimony
and litigation support. Schulman also teaches classes in economic
data analytics at Texas A&M University. Schulman's fields of
expertise include industrial organization, antitrust economics,
international economics, and econometrics.
NAR is an American trade association for those who work in the real
estate industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FHsaJY at no extra charge.[CC]
NIANTIC INC: Mobile App Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIANTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
HUD-L-004020-22 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., Dec. 6, 2022) is a civil
rights action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, seeking redress for Defendant's
actions which violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, like approximately 2.0 million other people in the
United States, is visually impaired and legally blind. The
complaint alleges that upon visiting Defendant's mobile
application, PokemonGO, Plaintiff quickly became aware of
Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its mobile app in a way
to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's alleged denial of full and equal access to its
mobile application, and therefore denial of its goods and services
offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
ADA, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's mobile app will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Niantic, Inc. is an American software development company based in
San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
NOMI HEALTH: Brighthaupt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tasma Brighthaupt, Deloris Evans, Joseph Hayes, Consuela Jones,
Odin Martinez, Veronica Mejia, on behalf of themselves as well as
all other similarly situated employees v. NOMI HEALTH, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and SBP STAFFING AND RECRUITING LLC, a
Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-24089-JEM (S.D. Fla., Dec.
16, 2022), is brought seeking recovery of unpaid overtime
compensation owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, all employees, were misclassified as independent
contractors by Defendants. They worked at the Defendants' Covid-19
facilities in the Southern District of Florida. Their primary
duties were to perform activities related to COVID-19 such as
testing and vaccinations. Plaintiffs, all hourly employees who
worked over 40 hours, seek their unpaid overtime compensation. They
time period at issue is on or around August 2020 to present. The
Plaintiffs claim and assert their rights that arose out of their
employment relationship with the Defendant for unpaid overtime,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are worked for the Defendant either as Registered
Nurse ("RN Collective") and Emergency Medical Technician ("EMT
Collective").
Nomi Health, Inc. is and was a national Company, authorized to do
business and doing business in the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel "Gabe" T. Roberts, Esq.
Cathleen Scott, Esq.
SCOTT LAW TEAM, LLC
Jupiter Gardens
250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
Jupiter, FL 33458
Phone: (561) 653-0008
Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
Secondary Address: 101 Northpoint Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Web: www.ScottLawTeam.com
Email: GRoberts@scottlawteam.com
CScott@scottlawteam.com
Secondary Email: mail@scottlawteam.com
- and -
Andrew Obeidy, Esq.
OBEIDY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
2755 E. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 225
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Phone: (305)892-5454
Facsimile: (954)206-6955
Email: andrew@obdlegal.com
NULIFE MED LLC: Pires Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NULIFE MED, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-017828 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Dec. 6,
2022) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the
Class members, including, without limitation, medical information,
health insurance information, names, dates of birth, home
addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and email
addresses.
On March 9, 2022 and March 11, 2022, an intruder gained entry to
Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members'
PII and PHI, and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems.
The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the
incident until May 2022. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI,
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the
Class members, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
and PHI was compromised because of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect their PII and PHI; (ii) warn of Defendant's
inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively
secure equipment and the database containing protected PII and PHI
using reasonable and effective security procedures free of
vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and violates federal and state statute, the Plaintiff
asserts.
NuLife Med, LLC is a disabled veteran-owned patient-focused medical
equipment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER: Jacks Files Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OakBend Medical
Center. The case is styled as James Jacks, Darren Jackson, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OakBend
Medical Center, Case No. 4:22-cv-04386 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
OakBend Medical Center -- https://www.oakbendmedcenter.org/ -- is
the last remaining independent, nonprofit hospital in the Greater
Houston area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks OK of Notification to Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES PAULI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN
OUTLET, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting Court
supervised notification to putative collective members pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
for equitable tolling for members of the putative collective
action, together with such other and further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout
retailers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v2ujew at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
mmoreno@vandallp.com
- and-
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House, 7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
OMONIA CAFE: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Omonia Cafe Inc., and Ioannis Arvanitis, Case No 1:22-cv-07770
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2022), is brought against Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of
Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully
deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating Plaintiff's, all other similarly situated
individuals', tipped wages. Specifically, the Defendants required
Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals, to pool their
tips pursuant to a mandated tip sharing scheme. The Defendants
unlawfully withheld all, or nearly all, of the Plaintiff's tips,
and all similarly situated individuals' tips. As the manager and
owners of Omonia Café, Defendants should not have taken a share of
Plaintiff's, and all similarly situated individuals' tips. The
employer-mandated tip sharing scheme imposed on Plaintiff and other
servers is not customary. The employer-mandated tip sharing imposed
on Plaintiff was not reasonable.
The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for one hour's pay
at the basic minimum hourly wage rate for each day his shift
exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants never granted the Plaintiff with
meal breaks or rest periods of any length. The Plaintiff was not
required to keep track of his time, nor to his knowledge, did the
Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets
or punch cards, that accurately reflected his actual hours worked,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a prep cook, dishwasher, delivery
worker, and general worker at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control a restaurant company
known as "Omonia Cafe", located in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, New York 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
PANDORA JEWELRY: Gielow Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diane Gielow, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, Pandora Ecomm,
LLC, Case No. 2022CH11181 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Dec. 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-07082 to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property
Damage.
Pandora -- https://us.pandora.net/ -- is known for its customizable
charm bracelets, designer rings, earrings, necklaces and (now
discontinued) watches.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian William O'Connor, Esq.
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 435-3032
Email: brian.oconnor@skadden.com
PLUSH APPEAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plush Appeal, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Plush Appeal, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10715 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Plush Appeal, LLC is the biggest and best wholesale and retail
supplier of Mardi Gras beads and party supplies in New Orleans,
Louisiana.[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
POINT QUEST: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Quest Inc., et
al. case is styled as Lattrice A. Robinson, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Point Quest Inc., Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2022-00331424-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
15, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Point Quest Education -- https://pointquested.com/ -- offers a
200-day program for special education students with challenging
cognitive, behavioral and emotional needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Monique McBride,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01607-UNA (D.
Del., Dec. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1523 Concord Pike, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: (302) 722-6885
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Ondo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ONDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-01306 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of confidence, breach
of implied contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.
Representative Plaintiff Chris Ondo and Class Members bring this
class action against Defendant Rackspace Technology, Inc. for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' personally identifiable information and/or other
proprietary and/or highly confidential data stored within
Defendant's information network, maintain its Hosted Exchange
environment so as to provide continuous email service and/or notify
Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members of outages so as to not
unreasonably interfere with their access to their Sensitive Data.
With this action, Representative Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused, and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiffs and thousands of others similarly
situated persons in the massive and preventable security incident
purportedly discovered by Defendant on December 2, 2022, says the
suit.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
storing and/or facilitating access to Representative Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' sensitive data, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals/businesses. These duties
arise from state and federal statutes and regulations, as well as
common law principles, the suit asserts.
Rackspace Technology, Inc. is an American cloud computing company
based in Windcrest, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon Ellis Esq.
SADOVSKY & ELLIS, PLLC
8620 N New Braunfels Ave Ste 110
San Antonio, TX 78217-6361
Telephone: (210) 832-9090
E-mail: jon@sadovskyellis.com
REALPAGE INC: Boelens Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Boelens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC;
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01802 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 20, 2022), is brought arising from
the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
rental housing prices in the Greater Seattle Metro Area.
RealPage the developer of a software platform called "AI Revenue
Management" (previously known as "YieldStar"), and several managers
of large-scale residential apartment buildings that used RealPage's
software platform to coordinate and agree upon rental housing
pricing, among other things, in the Greater Seattle Metro Area. AI
Revenue Management works by collecting vast amounts of non-public
data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point that drives rent. This data is fed into
an algorithm, along with additional data collected from Defendant
RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management
software products. RealPage's algorithm uses that data to generate
a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units,
which is updated daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know
that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental
price at least 80%-90% of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue
Management Advisors" monitor clients' compliance with that
recommendation.
With the assurance that their competitors are setting Seattle
rental prices using the same algorithm, each Defendant property
manager could allow a larger share of their units to remain vacant
while maintaining higher rental prices across their properties.
This increased their revenue at the expense of renters. The
Defendants' strategy only succeeded because of the pricing
coordination among competing property managers enabled by this
cartel. Knowing this, Defendant RealPage repeatedly and explicitly
emphasizes that for the software to work properly, everyone needs
to accept its suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time.
Beyond the anticompetitive exchange of nonpublic and competitively
sensitive information among competing property managers, Defendant
RealPage uses additional mechanisms to facilitate coordination
among cartel members and prevent cheating by conspiracy
participants. First, by allowing property managers to outsource
their rent-setting process, RealPage causes them to consider higher
rent prices than they ever would have before. Second, Defendant
RealPage polices cartel members by applying heavy pressure on them
to accept the algorithm's suggested price at least 80%-90% of the
time. The AI Revenue Management service includes more than its
rent-setting algorithm.
Third, the software also recommends lease renewal dates for its
clients' properties. Using Defendant RealPage's vast store of data
on lease transactions, the algorithm suggests dates that are
staggered to avoid temporary periods of oversupply resulting from
the natural ebb and flow of the market. This further reduces the
incentive for property managers to undercut would-be competitors,
which is the strongest during these temporary oversupply periods.
Fourth, Defendant RealPage facilitates direct information exchanges
between competitors and provides opportunities for direct
coordination of prices. It hosts online forums, organizes in-person
events for its clients, and maintains standing committees of cartel
members to advise on pricing strategy.
As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet,
RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices
across the board and understood that RealPage--which has been
explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market
by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which to do it. RealPage's clients
include many of the largest property managers in the Greater
Seattle Metro Area, who control a majority of the rental units in
desirable neighborhoods.
Specifically, within the Greater Seattle Metro Area, rents rose
dramatically while vacancy increased between 2015 and 2020,9
demonstrating that the forces of supply and demand no longer
control the price of rent in the Greater Seattle Metro Area. The
Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint
of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in
artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental
units in the Greater Seattle Metro Area. The Plaintiff and the
Class, who rent in the Greater Seattle Metro Area from property
managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges
on rent and suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental
units they could reasonably afford, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Ms. Boelens rented a residential unit in a Seattle,
Washington property.
RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Seattle, WA 98101
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06145
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
Email: david.scott@scott-scott.com
alawrence@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
gfoster@scott-scott.com
- and -
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
Email: tundlin@robinskaplan.com
sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
gkozen@robinskaplan.com
ahurt@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian P. Levis, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
Radhika Gupta, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Fax: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
rgupta@lowey.com
RECOVERY REMEDIES: Douglas Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recovery Remedies
Corporation. The case is styled as Allison Douglas, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Recovery Remedies
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05018-ELR-RDC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Recovery Remedies -- https://recoveryremedies.com/ -- is an
experienced debt collection agency focused on staying at the
cutting edge of our industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H Weitz, Esq.
Max Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (267) 587-6240
Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
John A. Love
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: (404) 855-3600
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
REGIONAL EXPRESS: Dixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyle Dixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. REGIONAL EXPRESS CLEV INC., REGIONAL EXPRESS ATL INC., REGIONAL
EXPRESS PITT INC., REGIONAL EXPRESS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02288
(N.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and to
challenge the policies and practices of the Defendants that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours. Accordingly, by not paying
them for all time worked, the Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio
law by not paying them all wages due, including overtime
compensation. Defendants encouraged the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to not take their full, uninterrupted lunch
breaks. Also, because of the demands of delivering packages,
Plaintiff and those similarly situated would not be able to
complete all assigned deliveries on time if they took a full
30-minute lunch.
Even though the Plaintiff and those similarly situated took no
lunch, were interrupted during their lunches, or took no more than
a 10- to 15-minute breaks, Defendants nevertheless still deducted a
full 30-minute lunch break. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated routinely worked 40 or more hours. Accordingly, by not
paying them for missed or interrupted lunch breaks, or for short
rest breaks of 20 minutes or less, the Defendants violated the FLSA
and Ohio law by not paying them all wages due, including overtime
compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants from August
through November 2022, as a non-exempt employee who was paid on an
hourly basis.
The Defendants jointly operate last-mile delivery services in Ohio,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2944
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: 330-470-4428
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Zirus Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Zirus also known as: Konchok Tingdzin
Wangyal, Kenric Ledbetter, Isaac Cardenas, Santhy Inthalangsy,
David Martin also known as: Etsuzen, Miguel Bygoytia, James Renfro,
Justin Panus, Richard Cross, William Oliver, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Religious Practice
Committee, Individually and in his or her official capacity;
Timothy Jones, TDCJ Director of Chaplaincy; Individually and in his
or her official capacity; Thomas Brouwer, TDCJ Assistant Director
of Chaplaincy; Individually and in his or her official capacity;
C.F. Hazelwood, TDCJ Director of Religious Service; Individually
and in his or her official capacity; Christopher Carter, TDCJ
Director of Rehabilitation Program Division; Individually and in
his or her official capacity; Case No. 4:22-cv-02858 was removed
from to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
Dec. 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00191-H to the
proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Prisoner Pet/Other Civil Rights for
Prisoner Civil Rights.
Religious Practices Committee serves as a spiritual guide within
the synagogue.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Facchini Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., et al. The case is styled as Terri Facchini,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services L.P., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-01621 (D. Conn., Dec. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
SABER HEALTHCARE: Brelo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Misty Brelo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02273 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 19, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants for the Defendants’ willful failure to pay
the Plaintiff overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all
other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and State
Law Class worked overtime hours, more than 40 hours in a single
workweek, during one or more workweeks during their employments
with the Defendants. The Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts by failing to pay its hourly
workers, including the Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA
Collective and State Law Class, at the correct regular rate of pay
during workweeks when they worked overtime and also received
nondiscretionary additional remuneration, including, but not
limited to shift differentials, pick up bonuses, and retention
bonuses, in addition to their base hourly wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly nurse from
October 26, 2021 until October 31, 2022 at one of Defendants'
senior living facilities in Tallmadge, Ohio.
The Defendants operate over 100 nursing rehabilitation and
long-term care facilities throughout the continental United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, Ohio 43220
Phone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Phone: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (440) 846-1625
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Phone: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (440) 846-1625
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Email: Strongsville, Ohio 44136
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Psalms Martinez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV020677 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Tulare, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Dec. 19, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00988.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for Failure to Pay Minimum
and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods;
Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify
Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
Jared Hague, Esq.
Jonathan W. Black, Esq.
SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 325-0500
Facsimile: (559) 981-1217
SILLY AXE CAFE: Gallusser Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Gallusser and Lydia Smith, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE SILLY AXE CAFE, LLC, and
ANGELA PIKE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00675-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Dec. 20, 2022),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs all wages
as required by the FLSA.
The Defendants regularly withheld Plaintiffs' tips. The Defendants
also regularly withheld the tips of other tipped employees. The
Plaintiffs asked Defendants to pay their tips in March of 2022, but
the Defendants refused to do so. The Defendants knew, or showed
reckless disregard for whether, the way they paid the Plaintiffs
and other tipped employees violated the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
The Defendant is a Kentucky limited liability company who maintain
a website at https://www.thesillyaxecafe.com/.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Anne L. Gilday, Esq.
THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC
606 Philadelphia Street
Covington, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 578-9130
Facsimile: (859) 578-1032
Email: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Bid to Strike Behrens Declaration Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike Southwest's use of the Behrens
Declaration.
The Court intends to conference with the Parties to discuss the
scope -- and related deadlines -- of any limited discovery
necessary to cure the alleged deficiencies raised by the
Plaintiffs.
Passenger Data is warranted given the ability of the Parties to
cure any prejudice to Plaintiffs, the minimal disruption to the
matter's pre-trial and trial proceedings, and the importance of the
evidence to Southwest.
The Court finds Southwest's cure proposals convincing. Although the
Plaintiffs were not provided an opportunity to review this data
before filing their class certification motion, the case's flexible
deadlines present opportunities to cure resulting prejudice.
The Plaintiffs move to strike Southwest's filings related to:
(1) the Behrens Declaration, and exhibits addressing the
Plaintiffs' and other customers' alleged assent to
Southwest's terms and conditions ("T&Cs") containing a
class action waiver clause;
(2) call transcripts; and
(3) passenger data/list.
The Plaintiffs contend these materials should be stricken because
Southwest failed to properly disclose the subject matter contained
in those filings and is unable to show that such failure was
harmless or substantially justified.
Southwest Airlines is a low-cost carrier. It is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, and has scheduled service to 121 destinations in the
United States and 10 additional countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jg6M6Y at no extra charge.[CC]
SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE: Garcia Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportsman's Guide,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Silvia Garcia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sportsman's Guide,
LLC, Does 1 through 25, Case No. 3:22-cv-09005 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for
Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Sportsman's Guide -- https://www.sportsmansguide.com/ -- is an
online retailer of hunting and fishing gear, military surplus,
ammunition and outdoor sporting goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION: Goodman Sues Over Unlawful Monopolies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodman Planting Company, LLC and Coghlan & Sons, GP, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
and CORTEVA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00735-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., Dec.
20, 2022), is brought under the Clayton Act to secure injunctive
relief and to recover actual and compensatory damages, treble
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees as a result of the
Defendants' unlawful monopolies.
In the latest-revealed scheme to take advantage of farmers in the
United States, Defendants have implemented special "loyalty
programs" in connection with key active ingredients that are
incorporated into products that farmers use to protect crops from
damage caused by insects, weeds, and fungi ("pesticides").
Under these loyalty programs, Defendants provide payments to
distributors in exchange for selling certain amounts of Defendants'
pesticides and restricting sales of generic pesticides made by
competing manufacturers. Defendants implement and enforce these
loyalty programs to ensure that manufacturers of generic pesticides
are unable to effectively distribute their products, which
preserves Defendants' control of the market and prevents price
competition.
As reflected in a recent complaint filed by the Federal Trade
Commission (the "FTC") and ten state Attorneys General, the
Defendants' scheme has succeeded. In order to obtain Defendants'
loyalty payments, distributors severely curtail sales of, and in
some cases wholly refrain from selling, pesticides that compete
with those manufactured by Defendants. Without these distributors,
competing manufacturers cannot effectively sell their pesticides
and farmers are forced to purchase Defendants' higher-priced
products. As a result, farmers face decreased innovation, fewer
choices, and increased prices totaling many millions of dollars in
overcharges.
Farmers use pesticides to control pests that would otherwise harm
their crops. Pesticides are crucial to crop management as they
enable farmers to grow safe, healthy food and to increase crop
quality and yield. Each year, about 500 million kilograms (more
than 1 billion pounds) of pesticides are used in the United States,
costing approximately $10 billion per year. Farmers benefit from
reduced prices caused by the availability of generic pesticides.
Nevertheless, Defendants have designed and implemented "loyalty
programs" to limit generic competition long after regulatory and
patent exclusivity periods expire.
On September 29, 2022, following an investigation, the FTC filed a
complaint against Defendants alleging that Defendants' loyalty
programs foreclose generic competition and result in higher prices
for farmers in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Only
a small number of distributors dominate the sale of pesticides in
the United States. Since they profit from participating in
Defendants' loyalty programs and face significant financial
consequences if they do not, these distributors readily exclude
generic pesticides from their distribution lists. As a result,
generic competitors are almost entirely foreclosed from efficiently
distributing their products. Prices remain high and farmers pay
millions of dollars more than they otherwise would have for
pesticides containing Defendants' ingredients. Defendants, on the
other hand, are able to maintain high prices and dominant market
positions years after their exclusivity expires. While Defendants
benefit, farmers are left to pay supracompetitive prices for
pesticides and are deprived of access to cheaper generic
alternatives.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have restrained
competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's
farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them
millions of dollars in overcharges. Plaintiff and the Class bring
this antitrust suit under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust
and consumer protections laws, and for unjust enrichment to redress
that wrongful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the herbicide Dual Magnum, which contains
the active ingredient Metolachlor, from a local retailer.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland
and is organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Thomas McCraney, III, Esq.
O. Stephen Montagnet, III, Esq.
William M. Quin II, Esq.
MCCRANEY, MONTAGNET, QUIN AND NOBLE, PLLC
602 Steed Rd., Suite 200
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 707-5725
Email: tmccraney@mmqnlaw.com
smontagnet@mmqnlaw.com
wquin@mmqnlaw.com
- and -
Andrew P. Duff, Esq.
DUFF LAW FIRM, PLLC
1752 Scout Cove
Nesbit, MS 38651
Phone: (318) 789-4842
- and -
Robert E. Hayes, Jr., Esq.
HAYES LAW FIRM, PLLC
5740 Getwell Road
Building 9, Suite A
Southaven, MS 38672
Phone: (800) 615-8901
Email: robbie@rhayeslaw.com
- and -
Charles Weissinger, Jr. (MS Bar 7085)
401 Walnut Street
Rolling Fork, MS 39159
Phone: (662) 873-6258
Email: weissinger.esq@gmail.com
TESLA INC: Faces Urban Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handles
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN L. URBAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INC., d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-07703 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2022) seeks
redress for Tesla's violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, California Business
and Professions Code; breach of express warranty under California
law; and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under
California law.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
nationwide class for the benefit and protection of purchasers and
lessees of Defendant's model years 2014-2016 Model S vehicles. As
alleged herein, Defendant's Vehicles are defective insofar as they
are equipped with door handles that routinely fail after or within
only a few years of normal use. When the door handles fail, drivers
and passengers are unable to enter the Vehicle through the affected
door, which creates a significant safety risk in emergency
situations, the suit claims.
The Defendant did not and does not disclose the alleged defect to
consumers. Accordingly, Defendant has engaged in unfair, deceptive,
and misleading consumer practices with respect to the marketing and
sale and/or lease of the unsafe and defective Vehicles and has
breached its warranty with the Vehicles' purchasers and lessees,
including Plaintiff, and Plaintiff and other Vehicle purchasers or
lessees did not receive the benefit of their bargain and have
incurred damages, says the suit.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kolin Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
- and -
Matthew R. Watkins, Esq.
EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 440
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 531-0033
Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
E-mail: mrw@edgarlawfirm.com
TRADER JOE'S: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has tossed a food labeling class action lawsuit
against Trader Joe's, which accused the supermarket chain of
wrongly selling fruit juice labeled as "cold-pressed."
The lawsuit had been filed in Chicago federal court by attorney
Spencer Sheehan, of Great Neck, New York. The class action was
filed on behalf of named plaintiff Lisa Cristia.
The lawsuit claimed the international food-stuffs chain is selling
juice labeled as "cold-pressed," even though the juice was
allegedly heat treated as part of the production process. Cristia's
lawsuit claimed Trader Joe's is misleading consumers concerned
about the contents and quality of their food and beverages.
The class action landed in court as part of an accelerating trend
of lawsuits targeting food makers and retailers, accusing them of
misleading consumers with allegedly deceptive labels. Sheehan has
been at the forefront of the trend, especially in lawsuits filed in
Chicago courts. According to federal court records, Sheehan has
represented plaintiffs in 90 fraud cases in the Northern District
of Illinois alone, including four against Trader Joe's.
In an order entered Dec. 9, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman
sided with Trader Joe's, citing the retailer's adherence to federal
food safety guidelines in dismissing the lawsuit.
According to Cristia, she and other consumers have a very different
definition of "cold pressed juice" than Trader Joe's. Cristia
alleges that this refers to juice "which was extracted from fruits
and vegetables and not processed or subjected to any form of
preservation beyond being ‘squeezed' or ‘pressed."
Cristia, in court documents, claimed that, unlike it's shelf stable
counterparts, cold pressed juice manufactured under the Trader
Joe's label was kept in the refrigerator section with other premium
beverages. Cristia alleged that consumers were duped into paying
more, lured in by prominent front labeling that suggested it was a
fresh juice product that had not been further processed. Central to
her complaint, she asserted that front labeling did not specify
that the product would be subject to additional processing.
Cristia accused Trader Joe's of violating the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act with its alleged deceptive packaging claims and Illinois
consumer protection law, contending the alleged deception is at the
heart of her case. She asserted that she and other class members
would not have purchased the product or paid the premium price for
it "if the true facts had been known."
Cristia's claim asserts that she purchased the juice based on its
prominent front facing label claims and is now entitled to damages
because it was misrepresented and she could not rely on its
packaging to help her make an informed decision. Cristia demanded
the food giant revisit its claims so consumers are not misled in
the future.
In his decision, Judge Gettelman cited statements from the Food and
Drug Administration's "What you Need to Know" website. Judge
Gettelman asked whether most people would know the facts about how
juice is processed to prevent spoilage.
Noting fine print on the side label, Judge Gettelman pointed out
that labeling did reveal the juice was further processed using a
hydraulic press to minimize the risk to customers of food borne
bacteria. He also highlighted that the actual labeling also stated
that its fruits and vegetables undergo a process of extraction
using a hydraulic press and cold water pressurization. The juice
was not, however, heat pasteurized as Cristia accused, and still
fell within the FDA's definition of cold pressed, Judge Gettelman
concluded.
The judge said his dismissal of the class-action lawsuit was based
on the conclusion that Cristia's interpretation of "cold pressed"
was contrary to the FDA's interpretation and food safety
recommendations for manufacturing juice manufactured by cold
extraction.
Trader Joe's has been represented by attorneys Dawn Sestito, of
O'Melveny & Myers, of Chicago, Los Angeles, and John Gekas, of Saul
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, of Chicago. [GN]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Shareholders Want Securities Class Suit Revived
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Goggin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that an
attorney for a class of Tupperware shareholders asked an 11th
Circuit panel on Dec. 14 to overturn a lower court's decision to
dismiss a securities fraud action claiming that a Mexico-based
division of the corporation faked sales data to artificially
inflate the stock.
The February 2020 lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Srikalahasti
Vagvala alleged that employees at Fuller Cosmetics, a Tupperware
sales subsidiary, falsified 60% of its sales starting in 2017.
Fuller's management increased sales via the shipment of unordered
products to independent sales representatives, according to the
complaint.
The scheme led to misstatements in Tupperware's financial
disclosures with respect to Fuller's value. Tupperware's stock
price declined when the misstatements were corrected in 2019.
The SEC opened an investigation into the practices at Fuller in
August 2021. Tupperware announced in September that it had reached
a settlement to resolve the inquiry and would pay a $900,000 civil
penalty.
In Vagvala's case, a Florida federal judge ruled in favor of
Tupperware Brands Corporation and five of its executives in
February, prompting the appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Arguing on behalf of Vagvala on Dec. 14, attorney Jacob Goldberg of
the Rosen Law Firm told a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based
appeals court that the lower court wrongly decided a Fuller
manager's alleged knowledge of the scheme did not show Tupperware
itself could be held liable.
Counsel for Vagvala argued in an appellate brief that Luciano
Rangel, Tupperware's former group president for Latin America, and
Evaristo Hernandez, a Fuller manager, knew about the bogus sales
and should be held responsible for misrepresenting Tupperware's
financials.
"If you're working for a corporation, it's a little bit like a chef
poisoning an ingredient before it goes into a dish before a
facilitator sends it to a waiter who furnishes it to a patron,"
Goldberg explained. "The person who put the poison in the food is a
proximate cause of the patron getting sick."
In his decision dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Gregory
Presnell ruled that the class had not shown that either Rangel or
Hernandez furnished the false data for inclusion in the
misstatements or were responsible for the alleged misstatements.
Although Presnell's order noted that an anonymous employee heard a
Fuller officer claim that both Hernandez and Rangel directed the
fake sales scheme, the judge ruled that neither executives' state
of mind can be ascribed to Tupperware.
But Goldberg urged the panel to rule differently.
"Mr. Hernandez created the scheme, he was fired for the scheme and
therefore he is responsible for the false Fuller numbers," he told
the judges.
Attorneys for Tupperware argued in legal briefs that the class is
unfairly trying to marry "the purported knowledge of individuals at
a foreign subsidiary… with public statements made on behalf of
the parent company by an entirely different set of corporate
officials."
Arguing for the company, attorney James Ducayet of Sidley Austin
said Presnell was right in finding there was "no strong inference
of scienter" created by the class's allegations. Scienter is a
legal concept which refers to the intent or knowledge of
wrongdoing.
"The plaintiffs are trying to take the scienter of the lower-level
folks down at Fuller and combine them with the statements made by
the [statement] makers and say because they all ultimately report
up to the same parent it's securities fraud," Ducayet said.
Members of the panel questioned what the appropriate legal standard
might be to determine who the "responsible" party is and what the
word "responsible" could mean in the context of the case.
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, a Bill Clinton appointee
sitting by designation from the Northern District of Florida,
questioned where judges should draw the line to determine when
someone is responsible for false statements.
"One place to draw the line would be… somebody who has something
to do with putting out financials. Or somebody who isn't involved
with the statements but is involved in the fraud," Hinkle said. "If
I've got to give a jury a standard, what does that standard say?"
Noting that interpretations in the Sixth Circuit separate the
liability of individuals who utter misrepresentations from those
who furnish, prepare or review a statement in which a
misrepresentation is made, Donald Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit
Judge Britt Grant admitted, "Our precedent hasn't been as specific
as some other circuits in terms of who can be responsible."
Grant and Hinkle were joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judge
Elizabeth Branch, another Trump appointee. The panel did not
indicate when it might issue a ruling in the case. [GN]
WARNER BROS: Two Ohio Pension Systems to Lead Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Daily News reports that a federal judge has appointed two
Ohio pension systems as lead plaintiffs and Ohio Attorney General
Dave Yost's office as lead counsel in a securities class-action
lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), the entertainment
conglomerate formed after the spinoff of Warner Media by AT&T and
its merger with Discovery on April 8, 2022.
In a motion filed on Nov. 22 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Yost sought the lead-plaintiff
status on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
the State Teachers Retirement System, which lost $25.5 million, the
lawsuit maintains, because WBD officials deliberately misled
investors during the merger process. [GN]
ZILLOW GROUP: Must Face Securities Class Action in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on December 7, 2022, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington largely denied a motion to dismiss a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against an online real estate listing company
and certain of its executives. Jaeger v. Zillow Group, Inc., 2022
WL 17486297 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2022). Plaintiff alleged that the
company made misrepresentations in connection with a real estate
purchasing program. While the Court dismissed one allegation as a
non-actionable forward-looking statement, the Court held that the
remainder of plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.
The crux of plaintiff's allegations related to the company's real
estate purchasing program, in which the company used software
algorithms as part of a largely automated program to buy homes
directly from homeowners, make certain repairs, and then relist
them. Id. at *1. Plaintiff alleged that the company made statements
touting its algorithms and operations, as well as attributing its
inventory growth to increased demand, which were allegedly rendered
misleading because the company had not disclosed that it employed
"pricing overlays" that increased its bids, allegedly in order to
boost the company's market share. Id.
The Court first determined that one challenged statement that some
economic improvements were "durable" was a protected
forward-looking statement because it "deals with economic
indicators that [the company] expects to maintain in the future."
Id. at *4. The Court rejected, however, the suggestion that other
statements containing the terms "we expect," "going to be,"
"durable," or "back on track" were sufficient to make broader
statements forward-looking. Id. at *5. Rather, the Court explained
that, to be protected, the statement must be "forward-looking in
substance, not merely in form, with no separable present- or
backward-looking aspects." Id.
Thus, the Court held that statements regarding the company's
algorithms were potentially misleading because the company was
allegedly not basing its pricing and inventory decisions on the
automated algorithm but was applying overlays based on human-driven
determinations. Id. The Court also determined that challenged
statements regarding "durable operational improvements" were
potentially misleading because the company's emphasis on
cost-cutting (allegedly necessitated by paying more than market
price for properties) was not sustainable and had threatened
relationships with contractors. In addition, the Court held that
plaintiff adequately alleged that statements regarding increased
consumer demand were misleading because plaintiff alleged that the
higher volume was driven by the company's price overlays. Id. at
*7.
Moreover, the Court rejected the company's arguments that its
existing disclosures were sufficient to make plaintiff's claims
implausible. For example, the Court held that disclosures that the
company was "testing price elasticity in this hot housing market"
as it "improved [] offer strength" were not sufficient to disclose
decreased reliance on automated processes. Id. Similarly, the Court
held that disclosures of reduced payments to contractors and of the
risks associated with its reliance on "contractors, vendors, and
service providers" were not sufficient to rebut allegations that
some contractors were "refusing, stopping, or delaying jobs as a
result of the reductions" and that the lower costs "were likely not
durable." Id.
The Court also rejected the company's argument that certain
statements, such as being "back on track," were mere puffery
because they were objectively verifiable and were more than just
optimism about the future. Id. at *8.
With respect to scienter, the Court explained that plaintiff
adequately alleged that multiple former employees had indicated
that the company's senior executives possessed information that
contradicted their public statements, including based on
allegations that the company's pricing overlay strategy was
allegedly widely known internally and was discussed in meetings the
executives attended and that certain executives expressly discussed
it. Id. The Court also noted that, with respect to allegations
regarding increased inventory, one former employee allegedly
recalled a specific meeting in which one executive was asked about
the inventory backlog and responded that the company would work to
"clear the backlog" by "slowing down or stopping purchases." Id.
The Court also held that the scienter allegations were supported by
the "core operations" theory, because the home buying operation
represented 60% of the company's revenue, and the company's CEO had
returned to the company specifically to oversee this business and
claimed it was the "centerpiece of [the company's] new strategy."
Id. at *9.
Finally, the Court determined that plaintiff had adequately alleged
loss causation because the complaint contained "enough facts to
raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence
of loss causation." Id. at *10. In particular, the Court noted that
plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the "truth became known" as a
result of a series of partial disclosures, and that a stock price
drop followed each of those disclosures. Id. [GN]
*********
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 ***