/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230102.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 2 Headlines 142 EDGECOMBE ASSOCIATES: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 9W HALO: Stipulation to Continue Briefing Schedule Submitted ACCEPTANCE NOW: Time Extension for Class Cert Briefing Tossed ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH: Ajani Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AERO TURBINE: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Aramak Seeks Zoom Hearing on Class Cert Bid ALBION VENUE: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ALPINE TREE: Molina Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tree Service Staff AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Kauffman Suit Alleges AMERICAN EDUCATION: Beadle FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida AMERICAN PROTECTION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ANKER INNOVATIONS: Bleiberg Sues Over Fraudulent Representations ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Security Cameras' Ads "Deceptive," Sloan Claims ASPIRE BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay OT & Back Wages, Drummond Alleges ASSESSOR OF FREEPORT: Williams Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Kagan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Arena Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH: Bennett Sues Over Unsolicited Calls BANK OF AMERICA: Georgion Sues Over Refusal to Reimburse Losses BELLODI LIMITED: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEN-AMUN CO: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Dicks Class Suit BIO-MEDICAL: Criste Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices BIRD GLOBAL: Faces Cain Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop BLUESTEM BRANDS: Gotten Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Bozeman-Clarke Sues Over Data Breach BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Card Suit Granted BROCK PIERCE: Hearing for Class Cert Reset for Jan. 26, 2023 BURGER KING: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal in Coleman CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Biele Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CASEY'S GENERAL: Kessler Sues Over Unpaid OT for Store Managers CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks Leave to File Memorandum Under Seal CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHAD WOLF: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued in Kidd CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Talamantez Sues Over Unsolicited Calls CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of Kennedy Red Light Violators Suit Affirmed CHOBANI LLC: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CIVIC PIT STOP: Richardson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CN WORLDWIDE INC: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana COAST PROFESSIONAL: Seeks to Strike Portion of Oakley Class Cert COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. Due March 15 COMFORT CALIFORNIA: Lacap Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Morales Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. COMMUNITY LOAN: Cefaly Sues Over Failure to Secure PII COMPLETE COLLECTION: D.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection Notices COMPOUND DAO: Houghton Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Nelson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Opt-in FLSA Plaintiffs Dismissed in Moses CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Suit Transferred to C.D. California CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in Clair Suit Gets Initial Nod D.R. HORTON: Dixon Suit Removed to N.D. Louisiana DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Sues Over Toxic Hair-Straightener DAILY WIRE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DANONE NORTH: Jasper Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Creamer Products DAVE & BUSTER'S: Carroll Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Data DERMACLINIC NEW: Fails to Pay Laborer's Minimum Wages, Escuted Says DMI: Second Renewed Bid for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs Filed ETHOS GROUP INC: Fedorys Files Suit in N.D. Texas F45 TRAINING: Goer Sues Over Share Price Dop FANATICS LLC: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Business Practices FIGS INC: Retirement Trust Sues Over Decline in Share Price FINANCIAL ASSET: Adams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina FIRST WESTERN: Fleck Revocable Trust Loses Class Cert Bid FLAT CREEK: Dusel "WARN Act" Suit Seeks to Certify Class FORD MOTOR: Bright Sues Over Undisclosed Roof Defect FORDWASH PARTNERS: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FOTO BOYZ: Servidio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Event Planners FRANK CALDERONI: Pentwater Capital Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. FRONTLINE ASSET: Wycislak FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FTX TRADING: Podalsky Sues Over Deceptive Cryptocurrency Platform FUNKO LLC: Dorton Suit Removed to C.D. California GANNETT CO: Dismissal of Belozerov Suit Over VPPA Violations Denied GEICO GENERAL: Status Report Submission Extended to Jan. 20 GEN DIGITAL: Illegally Collects & Sells Consumers' Data, Lau Claims GENERAC POWER: Basler Sues Over Defective System Components GMRI INC: Benitez Suit Removed to S.D. California GOJET AIRLINES: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Brown Suit Affirmed GOLDEN UNICORN: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law GOODNESS ORGANIC: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Revise Case Schedule Partly Granted GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Hicks Suit Removed to S.D. California GROUP SOLAR USA: Lojewski Files Suit in S.D. New York GROUPON INC: Salon Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Business Goodwill HAITI: S.D. New York Dismisses Pierre Suit v. General Consulate HAKUNA SERVICES: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARBOR FREIGHT: Comes, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Files Bid to Certify Class Action HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 5th Cir. HEALTH FIRST: Court Junks Colucci's Bid for Class Certification HEALTH IQ: Evans Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act HFS FINANCIAL: Faces Sidle Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland HI.Q INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit J.M. SMUCKER: Reports Website Visitors' Info to FB, Carroll Claims KASHI SALES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Hoffman Class Suit KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Chicas Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification KIRKLAND LAKE: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Securities Suit KORENS USA: Collective Action Settlement in Taunton Gets Final Nod KROGER CO: Avigne May File Amended Complaint to Remedy Deficiencies LANSING TRADE: Budicak Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice LENOVO INC: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert. Granted in Axelrod LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ahmed 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Certification LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ahmed Suit Seeks to Impound Confidential Materials LONKERO LLC: Faces Zachmann Suit Over Beverage Deceptive Labeling LYFT INC: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Lowell Class Cert Bid MATTEL INC: Discloses Video Viewing Info to Facebook, Carroll Says MDL 2918: Defendants Seek to File Confidential Material Under Seal MIAMI, FL: Fox One Sues Over Overcharging of Building Permit MIGNON FAGET: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Dicks Class Suit NIO INC: Mundy, et al., File Bid for Class Certification NOREE THAI: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, Suy Alleges OREGON: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Due Feb. 24 OUR DREAM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response in Powell PAPA JOHNS: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Thomas Class Suit Alleges PERGOLA 36: Amended CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Smith Suit PILLPACK LLC: Williams Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Court Modifies Class Definition in Jordan Suit PRETTY WOMEN: Scheduling Order Entered in Turner Class Suit PROMETAL CONSTRUCTION: Final Nod of Class Deal in Isufi Suit Upheld REALPAGE INC: Carter Suit Sues Over Trade Restraint Conspiracy REALPAGE INC: Vincin Suit Sues Over Trade Restraint Conspiracy RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act RISE SERVICES: Anthony Seeks Rule 23 Class Action Certification RYAN R. GILBERTSON: O&D and Gilbertson Settlements Get Final OK SABROSAS EMPANADAS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Rodriguez SCISSORTAIL ENERGY: Dinsmore Estate Seeks Interest on Late Payments SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Rosa Sues Over Share Price Drop SPECTRANETICS CORP: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Cummings Sues Over Drop in Share Price SPOKEO INC: More Time to File for Class Certification Sought ST. LOUIS, MO: Gullet Notice of Settlement Stayed STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Litman Suit Removed to S.D. California SUNPATH LTD: Court Strikes Smith Bid for Class Certification SWEET EARTH: Order Modifying CMO Sought TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert. TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal TD BANK: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over OD & NSF Charges TEAM HEALTH: Overbills Payors Using Inflated CPT Codes, Risk Says TEP ROCKY: Allowed Remote Testimony for Certain Fact Witnesses TOTAL INSURANCE: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Malone Alleges TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Bid to Junk Two Claims in Daniels Suit Nixed TRAVEL INSURED: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadline Filed TRU KIDS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Toro Suit UNITED HEALTHCARE: Washington Court Lifts Stay in Samson TCPA Suit UNITED STATES: Court OK's Schelske Bid for Preliminary Injunction UNITED STATES: Lewis Class Suit Dismissed w/or Prejudice UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Class Cert Proceeding Proposal WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Extended WELLS FARGO: Seeks Permission to File Information Under Seal WESTGATE PALACE: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Steines Suit WHELAN EVENT: Gorman Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement WHITEFISH, MT: Seeks to Vacate Current Scheduling Order WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Kolka Claims WYNDHAM HOTELS: Cullum Must File Amended Complaint Within 60 Days YATSEN HOLDING: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Maeshiro ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ********* 142 EDGECOMBE ASSOCIATES: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 142 Edgecombe Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kimmarie Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 142 Edgecombe Associates LLC, Manhattanville Coffee, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09874-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 142 Edgecombe Associates LLC is a business entity registered with the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Phone: (516) 783-9662 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: james@civilrightsny.com 9W HALO: Stipulation to Continue Briefing Schedule Submitted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR & CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties submit a joint stipulation to continue the Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, as follows: Event Current Deadline New Deadline Plaintiff's Motion for February 9, 2023 April 10, 2023 Class Certification Defendant's Opposition April 13, 2023 June 12, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification Plaintiff's Reply in May 11, 2023 July 10, 2023 Support of Motion for Class Certification 9W Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household users. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WLZFBX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com nolan@setarehlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. William T. Okamoto, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com calvarez@fisherphillips.com wokamoto@fisherphillips.com ACCEPTANCE NOW: Time Extension for Class Cert Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McBurnie et al v. Acceptance Now, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying RAC's request to enlarge time to brief plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to continue the hearing date. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH: Ajani Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angel Ajani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc., Case No. 2022-CH-10471 was removed from the Cook County Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 22, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06559 to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Contract. Advocate Aurora Health -- http://www.advocateaurorahealth.org/-- is a non-profit health care system with dual headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Downers Grove, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. Robert W. Harrer, Esq. CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C. 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 858-3239 Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com rob.harrer@cclc-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey J. Bushofsky, Esq. Francis X Liesman, III, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 845-1200 Email: jeffrey.bushofsky@ropesgray.com francis.liesman@ropesgray.com AERO TURBINE: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero Turbine, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aero Turbine, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011287 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 2, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Aero Turbine, Inc. -- https://www.aeroturbineinc.com/ -- is the leading and most comprehensive provider of maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services and consultative repair solutions for military engines and accessories on mature platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Aramak Seeks Zoom Hearing on Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAMEDA COUNTY MALE PRISONERS And Former Prisoners, Daniel Gonzalez, et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, as a Class, and Subclass, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant submits a request for a Zoom hearing pursuant to the Court's September 29, 2022 standing order concerning in-person hearings. From November 15-17, 2022, the parties met and conferred concerning the briefing and oral argument schedule for the Plaintiffs' anticipated second motion for class certification. The parties' discussion resulted in an agreement to request a hearing date of January 12, 2023. On December 1, 2022, the parties attended a Case Management Conference. Despite the parties' earlier stipulation, at the conference, the Court scheduled the class certification oral argument for January 19, 2023. Aramark intended, as with Plaintiffs' first motion for class certification, to have Amanda Lashner, an associate who authored the briefs, handle the oral argument on Aramark's behalf. Ms. Lashner did not attend the December 1, 2022 the Case Management Conference. Aramark understands it is the Court's preference to encourage parties to permit less experienced attorneys the opportunity to present the argument at such hearings in this manner. Ms. Lashner is located in Philadelphia and has three young children. The change in hearing date from the original agreement presents significant challenges to Ms. Lashner's ability to travel cross-country to handle the argument in-person, including with respect to childcare. On December 5, 2022, Ms. Lashner emailed all counsel requesting whether they would be willing to stipulate to a Zoom hearing. Counsel for Alameda County responded that he also prefers a Zoom hearing and would agree to such a stipulation. Plaintiffs' counsel declined to stipulate, but stated that she does not object to others participating by Zoom. Aramark requests the oral argument on Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification scheduled for January 19, 2023 be placed on Judge Corley's Zoom calendar. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I1zgMq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Van Zandt, Esq. Salayha K. Ghoury, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2872 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 E-mail: Peter.VanZandt@lewisbrisbois.com Salayha.Ghoury@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Charles J. Reitmeyer, Esq. Amanda F. Lashner, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: Charles.Reitmeye@morganlewis.com Amanda.Lashner@ morganlewis.com ALBION VENUE: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Vivar Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBION VENUE LLC d/b/a DA MIKELE ILLAGIO and SKYLINE VALET PARKING INC., and ILYA ZAVOLUNOV and JASON RODRIGUEZ, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-07791 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff's minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Further, although Plaintiff regularly worked 50 hours or more hours each week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a parking attendant and valet while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from February 2021 until January 2022. ALBION VENUE LLC d/b/a DA MIKELE ILLAGIO, is a New York domestic business corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 ALPINE TREE: Molina Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tree Service Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN GONZALEZ MOLINA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPINE TREE SERVICE INC. D/B/A ALPINE TREE, ALPINE TREE LLC D/B/A ALPINE TREE, WILLIAM B. SWITZEL, and VANESSA SWITZEL, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-07391 (D.N.J., December 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages, and fraudulent filing of information returns. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver, tree trimmer, bucket operator, and wood collector from September 2018 until September 2, 2022. Alpine Tree Service Inc., doing business as Alpine Tree, is a tree service company with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Alpine Tree LLC, doing business as Alpine Tree, is a tree service company with its principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Kauffman Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-01123-O-BJ (S.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendant illegally tapped, made an unauthorized connection to, and intercepted the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications through visits to Defendant's website www.aa.com., causing injuries, including violations of Plaintiff's and Class Members' substantive legal privacy rights under the Wiretap Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff brings this action for every violation of the Wiretap Act which provides for statutory damages of the greater of $10,000 or $100 per day for each violation. The Plaintiff also brings this action for every violation of California Penal Code which provides for statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation. According to the complaint, during visits to the website, the Plaintiff and Class Members, through computers and/or mobile devices, transmitted electronic communications in the form of instructions to Defendant's computer servers utilized to operate the website. The communications sent by Plaintiff and Class Members to Defendant's servers included mouse clicks and movements, keystrokes, search items, information inputted by the Plaintiff and Class Members, pages and content viewed by the Plaintiff and Class Members, scroll movements, and copy and paste actions, the suit says. Accordingly, Defendant has had embedded within its website code and has continuously operated at least one "session replay" script that was provided by a third party (Session Replay Provider). The "session replay" spyware was always active and intercepted every incoming data communication to Defendant's website the moment a visitor accessed the site, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and the County of San Diego. American Airlines owns and operates the website: www.aa.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com AMERICAN EDUCATION: Beadle FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joshua Beadle, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Education Services, Case No. 2022-CA-004942-NC was removed from the 12th Judicial Circuit In and For Sarasota County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Nov. 30, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02730-MSS-SPF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Education Services (AES) -- https://www.aessuccess.org/ -- services commercially held Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven Joseph Brotman, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 777 South Flagler Dr., Suite 215-East West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 820-0214 Email: steven.brotman@lockelord.com AMERICAN PROTECTION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAN A. TANOFSKY, and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY, Case No. 9:22-cv-81657-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant files its agreed motion for seven day extension of time to file its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) Collective Action Certification. The Plaintiff filed her Collective Action Complaint against the Defendant on October 28, 2022. On December 7, 2022, the Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On December 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for conditional Certification of Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule7.1(c)(1), the Defendant's deadline to file its Motion is December 27, 2022. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, the court may, upon good cause shown, make an enlargement of time to comply with any rule of court order. American Protection Plans is located in Boca Raton, Florida. This organization primarily operates in the warranty insurance/home business industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WrRWZL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is 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@jordanrichadspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin M. Ahr, Esq. Stephanie M. Robin, Esq. Justin B. Kaplan, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 360 South Rosemary Ave., Suite 1410 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 366-8765 E-mails: kristin.ahr@nelsonmullins.com; stephanie.robin@nelsonmullins.com justin.kaplan@nelsonmullins.com ANKER INNOVATIONS: Bleiberg Sues Over Fraudulent Representations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Bleiberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANKER INNOVATIONS LIMITED, ANKER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, and FANTASIA TRADING LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07218 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2022), is brought seeking damages for the Plaintiff and other consumers who were victims of the Defendants' fraudulent representations concerning the security and privacy features of their "Eufy" brand home security cameras, including the Video Doorbell, SoloCam, and eufycam product lines. The Defendants claimed, in marketing materials and elsewhere, that Eufy cameras store videos and images locally (i.e., within the storage of the cameras themselves) and conduct facial recognition locally, rather than transmitting them to cloud storage, such that only the user has access to videos and images recorded by Eufy cameras. Defendants further claimed that Eufy cameras use "military-grade" end-to-end encryption. These claims formed part of a long-term marketing campaign touting security and privacy, which the Defendants conducted specifically to target privacy-conscious consumers and distinguish Eufy cameras from competing products. However, as the Defendants were aware, and as the Plaintiff learned in November 2022, this was not true. That month, a technology security researcher sounded the alarm regarding the Defendants' misrepresented and wrongful practices, revealing that Eufy cameras upload images and facial recognition data to the Defendants' cloud storage, which is hosted by a third party (Amazon Web Services ("AWS"), a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.), even where the user did not sign up for cloud storage or services. It was further revealed that separate Eufy cameras linked to other accounts can identify a user's face, meaning that Eufy cameras transmit facial recognition data to cloud storage and share that information between accounts. The researcher also showed that persons can view live footage from Eufy cameras over web browsers, without logging in or otherwise providing any authentication, by using the correct web address, showing that Eufy cameras do not use end-to-end encryption. In response, the Defendants conceded that, even for users who did not create a cloud account or agree to the transmittal of images from their Eufy camera to the Defendants' cloud storage, the Defendants nevertheless collected such images and transmitted and disseminated them to the third-party company that hosts the Defendants' cloud storage for consumers. The Defendants admitted that it was an "oversight" and an "error" to have represented that it did not engage in this practice, and promised to change their marketing and other consumer-facing materials to make this clear. As of December 20, 2022, however, the Defendants continue to falsely advertise Eufy cameras as operating with "No Clouds" and make other misleading claims concerning Eufy cameras. The Plaintiff and other consumers relied on the Defendants' misrepresentations when purchasing Eufy cameras. However, contrary to the Defendants' representations, Eufy cameras transmit user data, including biometric information, to the Defendants' third-party-hosted cloud storage, and leave user data unprotected by strong encryption. As a result of the Defendants' false representations and undisclosed practices, the Plaintiff and other Class members were harmed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has used his Eufy camera at his home in Queens, New York. Anker Innovations designs and manufactures Eufy cameras for export and sale throughout the world, including throughout the United States, including in New York and Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Jonathan D. Park, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com jpark@pomlaw.com - and - Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 229-8811 Email: jsilverman@pomlaw.com ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Security Cameras' Ads "Deceptive," Sloan Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR SLOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANKER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and FANTASIA TRADING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07174 (N.D. Ill., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, and the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of their home security cameras. The Defendants extensively market that their camera products save all video recording and conducts all facial recognition locally. As such, the Defendants represent in their marketing materials that only the end user should have access to the video information recorded by the camera products. However, it was found that the Defendants are not only storing facial recognition data in the cloud, but also sharing that back-end information between accounts. Moreover, it was determined that the camera products were not made with end-to-end encryption. Additionally, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have had their biometric information uploaded to Anker's servers without their authorization. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover restitution and damages, and for injunctive relief, says the suit. Anker Technology Corporation is a manufacturer of security equipment and accessories, headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. Fantasia Trading LLC is a manufacturer of security equipment and accessories, headquartered in Ontario, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 401 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (308) 870-7804 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com ASPIRE BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay OT & Back Wages, Drummond Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAYTON DRUMMOND, MICHAEL DEMINDS, RONALD WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASPIRE BEHAVIORAL CONNECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03274-JMC (D. Md., Dec. 19, 2022) seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover unpaid back wages, overtime pay, treble damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants allegedly assigned the Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members worked full-time, or approximately 40 hours per week. During the month of June 2022, Defendants began to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees a flat rate of approximately $1000 per month, regardless of hours worked. The June 2022 reduction in wages resulted in the Plaintiffs and class members being paid less than the minimum wage for employees in Maryland ($12.50/hr.) and the Federal Minimum wage ($7.25/hr.). The job duties of the Plaintiffs and class members did not substantially change and the Defendants were aware that Plaintiffs were continuing to work the same schedules, the suit says. Accordingly, the Defendants scheduled Plaintiffs and the class members in a way that forced many of them to work over forty hours per week, and failed to pay overtime wages at the mandated time and a half rate for each hour they worked in excess of forty per workweek, in violation of the FLSA, MWHL and MWPC. Aspire Behavioral provides treatment and lifestyle services that support the efforts of children and adults within the Penn North, Upton, Greater Mondawmin and Coppin Heights communities with mental health needs to live as independently as possible through the development of treatment, lifestyle and supportive employment programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil S. Hyman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC 4520 East West Highway, Suite 700 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 841-7105 E-mail: neil@neilhymanlaw.com - and - Douglas J. Phillips, Esq. PHILLIPS LAW GROUP 2931 Churchville Rd. # 573 Churchville MD 21028-1515 Telephone: (410) 961-1036 E-mail: dphillips@phillipslawmd.com ASSESSOR OF FREEPORT: Williams Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Freeport, et al. The case is styled as Gregg Williams, Tyrone Gregg, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Freeport, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Freeport, Respondents, Case No. 618214/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Freeport -- https://www.freeportny.gov/ -- is a village in the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York state.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Kagan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Kagan, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Respondents, Case No. 618216/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Great Neck Estates -- https://www.vgne.com/ -- is a village on the Great Neck Peninsula in the Town of North Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Arena Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Valley Stream, et al. The case is styled as Richard Arena, Linda Arena, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Valley Stream, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Valley Stream, Respondents, Case No. 618215/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Valley Stream -- https://www.vsvny.org/ -- is a village in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH: Bennett Sues Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Brady Bennett, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Association of Health Care Management, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-04449 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought based on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to protect the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated people who were improperly called on their cell phones by the Defendant AHCMI despite registering their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff registered his cell phone with the Do Not Call Registry in November, 2008 in order to obtain solitude from unwanted telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff never provided express written consent, or any consent, to receive calls from the Defendant. Nonetheless, the Defendant called Plaintiff on his cell phone number at least 17 times in 2020 for solicitation purposes. The Defendant's calls were not made for "emergency purposes" or to convey healthcare information. Once the Defendant was informed that its calls were unwanted and to stop, there was no lawful purpose to making further calls, nor was there any good faith reason to place calls. The Defendant knew its calls were unwanted, therefore, all calls were made with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's rights. The Defendant's incessant calls were bothersome, disruptive and frustrating for Plaintiff to endure. AHCMI's call intruded upon the rights of the Plaintiff and the putative class members to be free from invasion of their interest in seclusion, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Cedar Park, Texas. AHCMI is a business entity with principal place of business located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (215) 540-8888 ext. 104 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Georgion Sues Over Refusal to Reimburse Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Georgion, Susan Purdy, Than Silverlight, Christina Smith, and Donna Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00618-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's refusal to reimburse its customers of losses from unauthorized transactions. BOA, along with six of the nation's other large banks, created "Zelle"--an electronic payment system to compete with the wildly popular consumer payment systems such as PayPal, Venmo, and CashApp. In order to encourage and expand the use of Zelle, after it launched in 2017 BOA began embedding Zelle into every customer's online account, and aggressively advertised it to its customers as "safe," "secure," and "easy." And in a further attempt to differentiate Zelle from its competitors, BOA and Zelle contended it offered faster payments between bank accounts, allowing the transaction to occur within seconds, while Zelle also advertised it as safe and secure because it was "backed by the banks." Defendant's efforts have been extraordinarily effective. Zelle is now the single most popular such platform in the U.S., processing more money than Venmo and CashApp combined. But Zelle is neither safe nor secure. In fact, it is a favorite mechanism for criminals and fraudsters to steal money from BOA customers for the very same reasons that BOA was able to effectively encourage its customer base to rapidly adopt it. For, unlike other peer-to-peer payment apps such as Venmo, Zelle is already integrated in the customer's online banking app and automatically connected to their bank account. Criminals can quickly, clandestinely and irreversibly move money out of the BOA account once they gain access to it. Fraud that victimizes BOA's own customers through Zelle generally comes in two forms: 1) activity in which a user's checking and/or savings account is accessed by a bad actor and used to transfer a payment to another account controlled by the fraudster – referred to as "unauthorized" transactions – and 2) activity in which a user is fraudulently induced into transferring a payment to a bad actor – often referred to by BOA as "authorized" transactions. BOA is of course aware that its customers are losing tens of millions of dollars every year due specifically to unauthorized transactions via Zelle. But, BOA does nothing, in large part because BOA has an enormous financial incentive to push Zelle on its customers and encourage them to use it. First, BOA is a controlling bank with an ownership stake in Zelle and profits through Zelle. Second, BOA saves millions of dollars by avoiding paying transaction fees to other competing networks. Third, BOA saves millions of dollars by reducing the amount of checks and cash transactions it is required to process. Last, BOA saves tens of millions every year by unlawfully refusing to reimburse consumers for unauthorized transactions. Although BOA knows otherwise, it advertises its online and mobile banking as "safe" and "secure," and never discloses to its customers that BOA subjected each and every one of them to a high risk of fraud for unauthorized transactions by embedding Zelle into each user's account. Victims of unauthorized transactions via Zelle, like Plaintiffs here, are left devasted after losing hundreds or thousands of dollars each time it occurs. For many customers, that money is needed to pay for rent, groceries, medicine or other necessities. Nonetheless, BOA refuses to help their customers when criminals steal money from their accounts – in spite of an unqualified guarantee and an undeniable legal obligation to do so – who have lost tens of millions of dollars through unauthorized transactions. BOA is legally obligated to reimburse its customers for these losses from unauthorized transactions, but doesn't. For theft resulting from unauthorized transactions, the burden rests squarely on the shoulders of BOA to conduct a reasonable investigation of the theft and either a) reimburse their customers or b) satisfy its own burden of showing that the customer's loss was not the result of an "Unauthorized Transaction." But as a matter of company-wide policy and practice, BOA does neither. Instead, it places the burden on its own customers--who are victims of the fraud--and refuses to reimburse them unless the consumer can prove to BOA's satisfaction that the loss qualifies as an Unauthorized Transaction. And even then, in many cases BOA still refuses to reimburse its customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been Bank of America accountholders. Bank of America Corporation ("BOA") is one of the largest nationally-charted banks in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 301 S. McDowell Street, Suite 1103 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 256-7766 Facsimile: (704) 486-5952 Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Brian J. Ellsworth, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 501-6550 Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com BELLODI LIMITED: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellodi Limited, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bellodi Limited, The Earthling Collective, Bellodi LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10763 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bellodi Limited doing business as Earthling Collective -- https://earthlingcollective.com/ -- is the leading online destination for men's contemporary fashion and streetwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com BEN-AMUN CO: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Dicks Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victoria Dicks, et al., v. Ben-Amun Co. Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: -- Any motion to amend or to join January 27, 2023 additional parties shall be filed no later than: -- Initial disclosures pursuant January 4, 2023 to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than: -- All fact discovery is to be May 1, 2023 completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production Jan. 30, 2023 of documents shall be served by: -- Depositions shall be completed May 1, 2023 by: -- Requests to Admit shall be May 15, 2023 served no later than: -- All discovery shall be completed June 14, 2023 no later than: -- A post-discovery status June 22, 2023 conference shall be held on: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BY1QdM at no extra charge.[CC] BIO-MEDICAL: Criste Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Eric De Guzman Criste, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV408857 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 22, 2022), is brought challenging the systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against individuals who worked for the Defendant. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees their rights and benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Registered Nurse from June 2012 to June 8, 2022. Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides medical services throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and – William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito St. # 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: 831-531-4214 Fax: 831-634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com BIRD GLOBAL: Faces Cain Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN CAIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BIRD GLOBAL, INC. f/k/a SWITCHBACK II CORPORATION, TRAVIS VANDERZANDEN, and YIBO LING, Case No. 2:22-cv-09178 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Bird between May 14, 2021 and November 14, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they: -- employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; -- made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or -- engaged in acts, practices and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of Bird securities during the Class Period. On November 3, 2021, Switchback filed a press release attached to a Form 8-K. The press release announced that, on November 2, 2021, Switchback's shareholders voted to approve the business combination between Bird and Switchback. On November 14, 2022, Bird filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announcing that the Company would restate its consolidated financial statements for certain periods due to issues concerning the recognition of Sharing Revenue. On this news, Bird's share price plummeted $0.069 per share, or 15.94%, from the prior trading date to close on November 14, 2022 at $0.364 per share, damaging investors. In ignorance of the falsity of Defendants' statements, the Plaintiff and the class members relied on the statements and/or the integrity of the market price of Bird securities during the Class Period in purchasing Bird securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' false and misleading statement, the Plaintiff contends. Bird is purportedly a micromobility company engaged in delivering electric transportation solutions for short distances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: Gotten Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluestem Brands, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nathan Gotten, Paulette Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07390-RMI (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Bluestem Brands, Inc. -- https://www.bluestem.com/ -- retails online products. The Company offers clothes, shoes, jeans, and television, as well as other electronic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria Jennings Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tkashima@milberg.com BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Bozeman-Clarke Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Bozeman-Clarke on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01446 (E.D. Va., Dec. 22, 2022), is brought arising out of the recent information theft and data breach at the Defendant that targeted the information of past and present employees who worked at the Defendant (the "Data Breach") as of March 29, 2021. The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized access to the sensitive data of past and present employees that worked at the Defendant. Because of the Data Breach, thousands of Class Members' suffered ascertainable losses inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now faced with the present and substantial risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, including their names, Social Security numbers, compensation, gender, race, ethnicity, dates of birth, and U.S. Government security clearance eligibility and status as of March 29, 2021 (hereinafter, the "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII"). Rather than following accepted industry standards or its own internal protocols the Defendant allowed files containing all of the above information to be improperly stored in a shared "Sharepoint" website which allowed unauthorized access to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; a then current the Defendant employee accessed these files, without permission or authorization, and downloaded them from the Defendant's internal systems to steal them for his/her/their own purposes. The Defendant failed to properly supervise its employees and their data handling procedures; failed to monitor the sensitive PII in its possession so as to detect the improper handling of the PII and its subsequent, foreseeable, theft; and failed to prevent the now former employee from stealing the sensitive PII. To this day the files containing the sensitive PII of Plaintiff and Class Members remains in the hands of the thief, and /or has been passed on to other unauthorized persons. Even worse, the Defendant did not send data breach notifications until November 10, 2022, close to two years after the Data Breach. When a data set that is inclusive of the aforementioned PII is breached, every moment is precious to ensure that that data is not then weaponized against the rightful owner of that data through identity theft. Sitting on this information for twenty months diminished the Data Breach victims' chances at mitigating the consequences resulting from the Defendant's failure to provide adequate protection of the sensitive PII; PII that Defendant chose to maintain for its own financial benefit. This allowed the Defendant to dodge responsibility, inevitably worsening the Data Breach victims' chances at weathering the storm that the Defendant created. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed--they have been exposed to a heightened present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and forever closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy those harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose PII was accessed unlawfully during the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of Virginia and was notified of the Data Breach and her PII being compromised by way of a data breach notification letter sent by Defendant on November 14, 2022. Booz Allen is a "global firm of approximately 29,200 diverse, passionate, and exceptional people" that provides "consulting analytics, digital solutions, engineering, and cyber" with "industries ranging from defense to health to energy to international development."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Scott M. Perry, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, P.C. 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 291-6666 Facsimile: (703) 563-6692 Email: Scott@bbtrial.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Brian J. Markovitz, Esq. Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Phone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 Email: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Card Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LORA ANN CARD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 17-3121 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the BP parties' unopposed motion for summary judgment. Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP American Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she performed cleanup work after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. She asserts that, as part of this work, she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants. She also represents that this exposure has resulted in the following conditions: shortness of breath, respiratory abnormalities, acute upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, persistent hand pains, body swelling, contact dermatitis, eczema, a lump on her right breast, abdominal pains, gastroenteritis, chest pains, cardiomyopathy, two heart attacks, depression, headache, memory loss, nausea, izziness, and loss of smell and appetite. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Card is a plaintiff who opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. On Nov. 10, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order that established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to defense counsel by no later than Nov. 10, 2022. The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that, because the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, she is unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendants' motion. Judge Vance explains that expert testimony is required to establish general causation in toxic-tort cases like this one. Scientific knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical, plus knowledge that the plaintiff was exposed to such quantities, are minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs' burden. Courts have also required expert testimony as to specific causation when the symptoms are not within the common knowledge of laypersons and not classified as transient or temporary. Because the Plaintiff has not pointed to any admissible expert opinions on either general or specific causation, she is unable to sustain her burden on causation. Based on the foregoing, the BP parties' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/5x7m2mdr from Leagle.com. BROCK PIERCE: Hearing for Class Cert Reset for Jan. 26, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rowan v. Brock Pierce, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach entered an order that theg oral argument/motion hearing for class certification is reset for Jan. 26, 2023 -- Hearing access credentials are available in the following URL link:[LINK:https://www.prd.uscourts.gov/video-teleconference-vtc-hearing-links]. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[CC] BURGER KING: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal in Coleman --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER COLEMAN, et al., V. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-20925-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant file a motion for leave to file under seal the exhibits attached to Matt Wilson's declaration in support of BKC's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing for the filing of unredacted copies of: -- BKC_Coleman_0002035-38, -- BKC_Coleman_0002842-58, -- BKC_Coleman_0002045-47, -- BKC_Coleman_0002215, and -- BKC_Coleman_0002001-03 (the "documents") under seal. On September 14, 2022, this Court entered the Agreed Protective Order between Plaintiffs and BKC, which permits the parties to designate documents as "Confidential -- Subject to Protective Order" and governs the use of the documents so designated. As part of BKC's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, BKC intends to file the Declaration of Matt Wilson ("Wilson"), the Chief Executive Officer of 5Hundred Degrees Design Studio LLC ("5Hundred Degrees"), a marketing firm engaged by BKC to, among other things, create in-restaurant visual merchandising content including printed merchandising kits consisting of items such as in-store posters and menu board visuals. These documents are all confidential because they contain confidential, proprietary information of BKC including: (A) BKC's protocol for photo shoots; (B) a sample creative brief for a proposed promotion; (C) a sample build sheet describing the steps and ingredients to build a Burger King sandwich; (D) an invoice from BKC's supplier to 500 Degrees listing specific Burger King menu items 500 purchased for a BKC photo shoot; and (E) a sample contact sheet of various images for BKC to review, select and approve. Burger King is an American-based multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants. Headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the company was founded in 1953 as Insta-Burger King, a Jacksonville, Florida–based restaurant chain. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VonKNT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Russo, Jr., Esq. RUSSO, JR., P.A. D/B/A THE RUSSO FIRM 301 West Atlantic Avenue, Suite 0-2 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Telephone: (844) 847-8300 E-mail: anthony@therussofirm.com - and - James C. Kelly, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY 244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 920-5042 E-mail: jkelly@jckellylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Joblove, Esq. GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A. 100 Southeast Second Street Miami Tower, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 349-2300 Facsimile: (305) 349-2310 E-mail: mjoblove@gjb-law.com - and - Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3191 E-mail: Jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall, Barbara Myles, Cori Pericho, John Pinkney, Joshua Smith and Alicia Mena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, Crossroads Impact Corp., Eric A. Donnelly and Robert H. Alpert, Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification bid. The Plaintiffs Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall, Barbara Myles, Cori Pericho, John Pinkney, Joshua Smith and Alicia Mena seeks to certify the following National Class: "All persons and entities in the United States and its territories Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds." The plaintiffs Covarrubias and Smith seek to certify the following California Subclass: "All persons and entities in California who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds." The plaintiff Myles seeks to certify the following North Carolina Subclass, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Civil Rule 23.2 and the prior Order of this Court: "All persons and entities in North Carolina who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds." Excluded from the Class, the California Subclass and the North Carolina Subclass are the Defendants, any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Defendants' agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of such Judge's staff and immediate family. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vinu8O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: llederer@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Justin A. Heller, Esq. Matthew M. Zapala, Esq. NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP 80 State Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 449-3300 Facsimile: (518) 432-3123 E-mail: jheller@nhkllp.com mzapala@nhkllp.com - and - Katherine C. Campbell, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Pkwy, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 695-6049 Facsimile: (501) 244-5389 E-mail: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Biele Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Josefina Biele, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00766-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 28, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members often, if not always worked approximately 100 hours per week while employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were misclassified as FLSA exempt employees and, therefore, were not paid at one-and-a-half their respective regular rates for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were paid by the Defendant on a salary basis and would not have their hours worked in a workweek beyond 40 paid at one Hundred and 150% of their regular rate. At no time during Plaintiff’s and the Putative Class Members’ time spent working for Defendant were Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members compensated at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek by Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, Defendant only compensated Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members at their regular rate of pay rather than the statutorily mandated rate of one-and-one half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a former Home Manager while employed by the Defendant. Caregivers for Independence, LLC is a domestic for Profit limited liability company registered in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com CASEY'S GENERAL: Kessler Sues Over Unpaid OT for Store Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMER KESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., CASEY'S MARKETING COMPANY, and CASEY'S RETAIL COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02971 (S.D. Ill., December 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a store manager in Neoga, Illinois from March 2022 to July 2022. Casey's General Stores, Inc. is an owner and operator of convenience stores in the U.S., doing business in Iowa. Casey's Marketing Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Casey's General Stores, Inc. Casey's Retail Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Casey's General Stores, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Loren Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA 447 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc Hepworth, Esq. David Roth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Rebecca Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Ave., Ste. 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks Leave to File Memorandum Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernstein, et al., v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order seeks leave to file under seal: 1. Cengage's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel; and 2. the accompanying Appendix of Evidence (other than exhibits A, A9, A10, A12, A25–A27, C1–C12, C15–C23, J, L, M, P, and Q, which need not be sealed). Cengage's Opposition and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence reference or include documents and deposition testimony that Cengage has designated as "Confidential" or "Attorney's Eyes Only." Cengage will file unredacted versions via ECF using the "Selected Parties" viewing level. Cengage's Opposition and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence contain proprietary information regarding Cengage's business activities and publishing agreements. Documents containing "trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information," such as the proprietary information and contract terms at issue. Cengage is an American educational content, technology, and services company for the higher education, K-12, professional, and library markets. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FVoDI2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Chritopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP www.gibsondunn.com 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 Facsimile: (213) 229-6396 E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Center for Developmental Services of California. The case is styled as Jessica Lopez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Center for Developmental Services of California, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011300 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Center for Developmental Services of California -- https://www.dds.ca.gov/ -- provides services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan E. Ross, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460 Pasadena, CA 91101 CHAD WOLF: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued in Kidd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd, et al., v. Chad T. Wolf, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order: 1. continuing hearing on class certification motion; and 2. striking motion for judgment on the Pleadings and setting supplemental briefing schedule for class certification motion. The Court orders that Defendants are permitted to file, no later than January 5, 2023, a Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, setting forth the relevant Aleman Gonzalez-based arguments in the class certification motion context. The Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply, which shall be limited to responses to the Supplemental Opposition, is due January 12, 2023. On December 23, 2022, the Defendants filed a second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WQ5K0i at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Talamantez Sues Over Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Irene Talamantez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DBA SPECTRUM CABLE, Case No. 5:22-cv-01304-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a result of the Defendant's artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls. The Defendant routinely uses an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to wrong cellular telephone numbers. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result the Defendant's subject calls, in connection with which it used an artificial or prerecorded voice message, in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance. The Defendant, as a matter of pattern and practice, uses an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with calls it places to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, absent prior express consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in San Antonio, Texas. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Phone: 817-416-5060 Fax: 817-416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. Eric H. Weitz, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of Kennedy Red Light Violators Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW KENNEDY, VINCENT SAISI, INC., RIZA MILOVIC, and VICTOR ZISMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-21-0492 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, affirms the Cook County circuit court's order granting the City's motion to dismiss. The appeal arises from a putative class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff-Appellants on behalf of themselves and others found liable for red light violations under the City of Chicago's automated red light camera program. The Plaintiffs' argument -- which they maintain on appeal -- was that the notices of violation (NOVs) sent by the City were void ab initio because they did not contain certain information required by the Chicago Municipal Code. The Cook County circuit court ultimately granted the City's motion to dismiss, finding that the NOVs substantially complied with the Municipal Code. The Plaintiffs now appeal that dismissal. The red light camera statute of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(m) (West 2014)) authorizes municipalities in Cook County to enforce red light violations via an automated camera system. In July 2003, the City of Chicago established its red light camera program by enacting an ordinance in the Municipal Code. Chicago Municipal Code Section 9-102-020(a) (added July 9, 2003). Pursuant to the ordinance, the City has installed cameras at various intersections to automatically record images of vehicles that enter the intersection against a red light. The City then sends the registered owners of such vehicles an NOV that includes a copy of the image(s) captured by the camera and instructions on how to pay or contest the violation. In the case at bar, the Plaintiffs collectively received several NOVs for violations occurring in the years 2015 to 2018. On Sept. 17, 2018, they filed their putative class action complaint seeking, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that the City's NOVs were void ab initio for failing to comply with the requirements set forth in section 9-100-045(a) of the Municipal Code (Chicago Municipal Code Section 9-100-045(a) (amended Oct. 28, 2015)). The City filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint on several grounds. Broadly speaking, the City first asserted that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit. Second, the City contended that the Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not claim to be prejudiced by the allegedly deficient NOVs. Third, the City argued that the NOVs complied with the Vehicle and Municipal Codes and that, in any event, the Code provisions in question were merely directory, rather than mandatory. On April 5, 2021, after additional briefing and argument, the circuit court entered a written order granting the City's motion to dismiss. In its order, the court first analyzed the language of the Municipal Code and determined that the use of the word "shall" suggested that the allegedly missing information was mandatory, rather than directory. However, it went on to find that the City substantially complied with the Municipal Code and that the substantial compliance was sufficient because (1) the NOVs fulfilled the general notification purposes of the provisions in question and (2) the Plaintiffs had not alleged, much less established, that they were prejudiced by the City's lack of strict compliance. The appeal followed. On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred in granting the City's motion to dismiss, which was brought as a combined motion under section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2018)). The parties each raise several interrelated arguments. The Appellate Court first addresses the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiffs' suit is barred in the first instance by their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It opines that the Plaintiffs' claim is not barred for their failure to pursue an administrative remedy. It finds that the Plaintiffs' challenge is not one of the enumerated defenses authorized by the Municipal Code. Having so decided, the Appellate Court now turns to whether the relevant ordinances are mandatory or discretionary. Because section 9-100-045(a) is merely directory, a violation on the part of the City does not automatically invalidate the Plaintiffs' tickets. Instead, the burden remains on the Plaintiffs to show that they were prejudiced by any non-compliance. However, they have not alleged or established any prejudice. Finally, the Appellate Court finds that the recipients are on notice that they will incur negative consequences if they do not respond to the NOV. Even if, as the Plaintiffs submit, prejudice might occur in some hypothetical scenarios, that is insufficient to establish that they were prejudiced by the City's lack of strict compliance. Nor is the Appellate Court persuaded by the Plaintiffs' argument that substantial compliance is insufficient because the ordinance at issue is "penal in nature. Thus, it finds substantial compliance sufficient under the facts of the case. Because the City's substantial compliance was sufficient to effectuate the purpose of the NOV ordinance, and because the Plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from a lack of strict compliance, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, the circuit court's judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ca8p7wxt from Leagle.com. Mark Roth -- mark@rothfioretti.com -- of Roth Fioretti LLC, of Chicago, for the Appellants. Celia Meza, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper and Ellen W. McLaughlin, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for the Appellee. CHOBANI LLC: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chobani LLC. The case is styled as Jermaine Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chobani LLC, Case No. CGC22603042 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Chobani -- http://www.chobani.com/-- is an American food company specializing in strained yogurt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue J. Nam, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: 212-643-0500 CIVIC PIT STOP: Richardson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Civic Pit Stop, et al. The case is styled as Andre Tremell Richardson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public v. ACV Auctions Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22603069 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Civic Pit Stop -- https://civicpitstop.com/ -- was designed to provide clean and safe public toilets, sinks, used needle receptacles and dog waste stations in areas impacted by homeless individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203 Encino, CA 91436-4535 Phone: 818-582-3086 Fax: 818-582-2561 Email: david@spivaklaw.com CN WORLDWIDE INC: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sheila Jackson, Cynthia Gant, on behalf of herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CN Worldwide Inc., Defendant; Illinois Central Railroad Company, Intervenor Defendant; Case No. 41188 B was removed from the 23rd Judicial District Court, St. James Parish, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Dec. 2, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04763-SSV-JVM to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CN Worldwide Inc. is a company that operates in the Logistics and Supply Chain industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis J. Turner, Esq. TURNER LAW FIRM, LLC 413 W. Main Street Gonzales, LA 70737 Phone: (225) 644-2229 Email: tturner@turnerlawfirm.net The Defendant and Intervenor Defendants are represented by: Bradley Russell Belsome, Esq. Brodie G. Glenn, Esq. Crystal E. Domreis, Esq. Michael C. Mims, Esq. BRADLEY, MURCHISON, KELLY & SHEA, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: (504) 596-6300 Email: bbelsome@bradleyfirm.com bglenn@bradleyfirm.com cdomreis@bradleyfirm.com mmims@bradleyfirm.com - and - Christopher R. Handy, Esq. BRADLEY MURCHISON KELLY & SHEA 1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2700 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: (504) 596-6300 Email: chandy@bradleyfirm.com COAST PROFESSIONAL: Seeks to Strike Portion of Oakley Class Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA OAKLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC., PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP., and PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking portions of the Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff Oakley. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), Coast seeks to strike portions of plaintiff's Class Motion. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to impermissibly amend her complaint through briefing by adding direct liability claims against Coast. The Plaintiff, however, by her own admission, brings claims only for vicarious liability against Coast relating to a letter sent by co-defendant PRI. Despite, this, plaintiff attached three letters from Coast to her Class Motion and treated them as part of the basis for her claims and the claims of the class she seeks to represent -- inferring that she also has claims for direct liability against Coast. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpG6Q7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road. Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq. HAMILTON , BURGESS , YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC P.O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840 Telephone: (304) 574-2727 Facsimile: (304) 574-3709 E-mail: SBroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com The Defendants are represented by: Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC 500 Virginia Street East, Suite 600 Charleston, WV 25337 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 Facsimile: (304) 343-3133 E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com - and - Dayle Van Hoose, Esq. Michael D. Alltmont, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL, & SHARTLE, LLC 3350 Buschwood Park Dr., Ste. 195 Tampa, FL 33618 Telephone: (813) 890-2463 Facsimile: (866) 466-3140 E-mail: dvanhoose@sessions.legal malltmont@sessions.legal - and - Joseph M. Ward, Esq. Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq. Mary Claire Davis FROST BROWN TODD LLC 500 Virginia Street East, Suite 1100 Charleston, WV 25301-3207 Telephone: (304) 345-0111 Facsimile: (304) 345-0115 E-mail: jward@fbtlaw.com azurbuch@fbtlaw.com mcdavis@fbtlaw.com COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. Due March 15 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOODMAN, et al., v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00015 (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D Land entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery to the following extent: -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures March 8, 2023 due: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class March 15, 2023 certification due: -- Fact discovery ends: May 10, 2023 -- Defendant's expert disclosures June 7, 2023 due: -- The Plaintiffs' expert rebuttals August 10, 2023 due: -- Expert discovery ends: September 15, 2023 -- Dispositive motions and October 27, 2023 Daubert motions due: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Columbus Regional Health is a nationally recognized health system serving a 10-county region in southeastern Indiana.[CC] COMFORT CALIFORNIA: Lacap Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comfort California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jeff V. Lacap, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comfort California, Inc., Sunburst Hospitality Corporation, Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22603274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Comfort California, Inc. operates public hotels and motels. The Company's amenities include golf courses and residential complexes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq. 9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 424-529-2080 Email: jb@jbilslaw.com Web: https://www.tomorrowlaw.com/jeffrey-bils/ COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Morales Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IVELIZ MORALES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Iveliz Morales, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Financial Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01319, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative class action arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. Morales received a letter from the Defendant/debt collector, Commonwealth, regarding a debt owned by non-party Pendrick Capital Partners LLC. Morales alleges that the letter violates Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it contains false, deceptive and misleading representations about the law with respect to restarting/reviving the statute of limitations on a time-barred debt, and about whether she could get sued on a time-barred debt. On May 26, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Evelyn Padin on Dec. 16, 2022. Judge Padin holds that Morales' claim that the language in the final paragraph of the letter contains false, deceptive, and misleading representations about the law with respect to restarting/reviving the statute of limitations on a time-barred debt, and about whether Morales could get sued on a time-barred debt is inconsistent with numerous court decisions holding that similarly worded language fails to support an actionable claim under FDCPA Section 1692e. And because Morales' sole claim is based on her assertion that the final paragraph of the Letter violates FDCPA Section 1692e, her complaint is dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Iveliz Morales v. Commonwealth Financial Systems Inc., Case No. 22-3388, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 19, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant IVELIZ MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES WOLF & KAPASI 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Defendant-Appellee COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC. is represented by: Aaron R. Easley, Esq. SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Telephone: (908) 237-1660 COMMUNITY LOAN: Cefaly Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------ Judith Cefaly, Cathryne Fera, and Albert Brumitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-23763-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information provided by and belonging to its customers, including, without limitation, name, and Social Security number and, for some, information provided in connection with a loan application, loan modification, or other items regarding loan servicing (collectively, "PII"). This action stems from the Defendant's failure to secure the sensitive personal information of its current and former customers and other consumers for whom the Defendant performed services. On October 27, 2021, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's network systems, accessed the PII stored therein, and exfiltrated information (the "Data Breach"). In early December 2021, Defendant identified this "security incident involving unauthorized access to its file servers." The Defendant determined that "an unauthorized person obtained access to files on its file storage servers from October 27, 2021 to December 7, 2021." On January 31, 2022, the review process determined that the unauthorized actor accessed and exfiltrated the PII of over one hundred thousand people, current and former CLS clients, which included Plaintiffs. The current and former customers of CLS are referenced as "Class Members." On August 16, 2022, Defendant began notifying various Attorneys General, Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Defendant acquired, collected and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and/or financial information in connection with the Defendant's provision of mortgage loan servicing. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to these individuals to safeguard and protect the PII from unauthorized access. Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII accessed and exfiltrated includes highly sensitive information, such as names and Social Security numbers. The sensitive information also included, for some, information that CLS required from customers in connection with loan applications, loan modifications, or other loan-related services. This information more than likely includes, but is not limited to, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, financial or bank account information, driver's license numbers, and email addresses. The exposed PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members can be sold to other identity thieves or on the dark web, a hidden network of black-market websites that serves as a "haven for all kinds of illicit activity (including the trafficking of stolen personal information captured through means such as data breaches or hacks)." The Plaintiffs and Class Members face an ongoing and lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened by the exposure of their Social Security numbers. This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its failure to protect PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Until notified of the breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea that their PII had been compromised by the Data Breach and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This risk will remain for their rest of their lives. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: adequately protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members; warn Plaintiffs and Class Members of its inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities. Defendant's conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes designed to prevent or mitigate this very harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were required to entrust their most sensitive and confidential information to the care of Defendant. The Defendant is a mortgage loan servicing and loan management company operating throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle – Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 Email: julie@colson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 Email: byrd@whafh.com - and - Adam E Polk, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Kimberly Macey, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com - and - Terry R Coates, Esq. Dylan J Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513/651-3700 Fax: 513/665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com COMPLETE COLLECTION: D.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection Notices --------------------------------------------------------------- D.T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPLETE COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 221202038 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought for damages brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of the Defendants unlawful collection notices. The FDCPA was passed by Congress to counter abusive debt collection practices, including practices that contribute "to invasions of individual privacy." Furthering this purpose of consumer privacy, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from "using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector's address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business." The Defendant sent collection notices to Plaintiff and the class that prominently displayed, for anyone to see, that the letters were coming from a debt collector. Specifically, Complete Collection's envelope has a glassine window showing a return address for "Complete Collection Service." The Plaintiff accordingly brings claims for statutory damages under the FDCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a consumer who resides in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania and uses the pseudonym D.T. to protect his privacy. Complete Collection Services, Inc. is a foreign corporation and collection agency with an office for the regular transaction of business in Springfield, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, PC 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Phone: (610) 822-0782 COMPOUND DAO: Houghton Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA HOUGHTON, CHARLES DOUGLAS, and SUSAN FRANKLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPOUND DAO, a California general partnership; ROBERT LESHNER; GEOFFREY HAYES; AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; POLYCHAIN ALCHEMY, LLC; BAIN CAPITAL VENTURES (GP), LLC; GAUNTLET NETWORKS, INC; PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07781 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals who purchased or obtained COMP on or after December 8, 2021, arising from the Defendants' unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Compound is a business that allows users to borrow and lend crypto assets, in much the same way that a traditional bank allows customers to borrow and lend traditional currencies. Compound was created in 2017 by Compound Labs, Inc., a corporation headquartered in San Francisco. In May 2020, Compound Labs transferred control over the Compound business to Defendant Compound DAO, a California general partnership. Compound DAO is governed by the holders of a security called COMP. Shortly after Compound Labs transferred control of its business to Compound DAO, the DAO began offering COMP tokens to the public. According to the complaint, Compound DAO and the Partner Defendants sell COMP directly to investors through the Compound protocol, in exchange for using the service and paying fees. Compound DAO and the Partner Defendants also solicit sales of COMP on the secondary market through their extensive promotion of COMP, their efforts to facilitate and encourage a robust secondary market for COMP, and their performance of other steps necessary to the widespread distribution of COMP to investors. Because Compound DAO and the Partner Defendants offer and sell COMP to the public and solicit such sales without registration or qualification, Plaintiffs bring this class action for rescission or rescissory damages, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Harrow, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 3243B S. La Cienega Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90016 Telephone: (323) 744-5293 Facsimile: (323) 744-5293 E-mail: jason@gerstein-harrow.com - and - Charles Gerstein, Esq. Emily Gerrick, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 810 7th Street NE, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 670-4809 E-mail: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com - and - James Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1499 Massachusetts Ave. NW, #113A Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Nelson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connexin Software Inc., et al. The case is styled as Evelyn Nelson, individually, as natural parent and next friend of J.N. I and J.N. II, minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connexin Software Inc. doing business as: Office Practicum, Case No. 2:22-cv-04676-JDW (E.D. Pa., Nov. 22, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Connexin Software, Inc., doing business as Office Practicum -- http://officepracticum.com/-- develops and publishes applications software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria Jennings Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tkashima@milberg.com CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Opt-in FLSA Plaintiffs Dismissed in Moses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVEN MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:18-cv-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, several of the opt-in FLSA plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, a group of workers employed as flagmen or flaggers, brought this putative class action against a group of Defendants, including Consolidated Edison of New York ("ConEd"). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Griffin Industries and Griffin Services (together, "Griffin") failed to pay their wages at the prevailing rates. They bring suit against ConEd under a joint-employer theory. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang previously granted Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective. The Defendant argues that the FLSA claims of several opt-in plaintiffs should be dismissed because their claims are time-barred. The Plaintiff appears to argue that dismissal of these plaintiffs would be premature because their class certification motion has not yet been decided. One does not preclude the other. The Court sees no reason to contradict Judge Wang. Given this, the FLSA claims for Plaintiffs who either (i) ceased working for Griffin before July 20, 2017 or (ii) although still employed by Griffin, did not work on a ConEd project after July 20, 2017 are dismissed as time barred. To be clear, the Court dismisses the claims of those people who did not perform flagging work through Griffin for ConEd on or after July 20, 2017. Consolidated Edison provides energy-related products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPxpiY at no extra charge.[CC] CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Suit Transferred to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Pinn, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation, Inc., National Budget Planners of South Florida, Inc., Ishwinder Judge, an individual, Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants; Digital Media Solutions, LLC, Non-Party, Movant; Case No. 4:22-cv-04048-DMR was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-00233-DSF-AGR to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation, Inc. -- http://www.cccfusa.org/-- offers budgeting, credit and financial education and counseling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (972) 564-8340 Fax: (866) 509-1197 Email: ep@eplaw.us The Defendant is represented by: Eric J Gitig, Esq. Sevada Hakopian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com sevada.hakopian@jacksonlewis.com CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in Clair Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, THOMAS GOTTSTEIN, DAVID R. MATHERS, LARA J. WARNER and BRIAN CHIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-03385-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: -- The Class Certification for Settlement Purposes: The Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Class defined as follows: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse ADRs between October 29, 2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of their immediate families, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times and members of their immediate families, the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are any persons and entities who are found by the Court to have timely and validly requested exclusion. -- The Court finds and concludes that pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the settlement only, Lead Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and certifies it as Class Representative for the Class. The Court also appoints Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -- Preliminary Approval of the Settlement: The Court does hereby preliminarily approve the Stipulation and the settlement set forth therein, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class. City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System is a public pension fund based in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YHVSr7 at no extra charge.[CC] D.R. HORTON: Dixon Suit Removed to N.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alicia R. Dixon and West J. Dixon v. D.R. HORTON, INC.–GULF COAST; BELL MECHANICAL SERVICES; AND BELL MECHANICAL HOLDINGS, Case No. C-716640 was removed from the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on Dec. 9, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01005-BAJ-SDJ. The Plaintiffs filed their Original Class Action Petition for Damages in the State Court Action as purported representatives of a defined putative class under the Class Action Fairness Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James A. Brown, Esq. Charles B. Wilmore, Esq. Courtney Harper Turkington, Esq. Sheri L. Corales, Esq. Melanie Derefinko, Esq. LISKOW & LEWIS 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139-5099 Phone: (504) 581-7979 Facsimile: (504) 556-4108 Email: jabrown@liskow.com cbwilmore@liskow.com chturkington@liskow.com scorales@liskow.com mderefinko@liskow.com DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Sues Over Toxic Hair-Straightener ----------------------------------------------------------- Carla G. Rose and Dollie Dillon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DABUR INTERNATIONAL LTD. d/b/a DABUR USA, INC.; DABUR INTERNATIONAL LTD.; and NAMASTE LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02686-NJR (S.D. Ill., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendants failure to disclose in the products' label the presence of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ("EDC") in the Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straightener. The Defendants distribute, market, and sell several over-the-counter hair straightener and/or relaxer products under their brand names, including "ORS Olive Oil" ("Toxic Hair-Straightener(s) and/or Relaxer(s)"). The Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straighteners and/or Relaxers are adulterated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ("EDC"). EDC's, including Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate ("DEP"), are known to increase a woman's risk of: endometriosis, abnormalities in reproductive organs, various cancers, altered nervous system and immune function, respiratory problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular problems, growth, neurological and learning disabilities. The presence of EDCs in Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straightener was not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiffs and the putative classes suffered economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and they seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the hair straighteners and/or relaxers product(s) they purchased, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Hair Straighteners and/or Relaxers manufactured, sold, and distributed by the Defendants. Dabur International LTD. d/b/a Dabur USA, Inc. distribute, market, and sell several over-the-counter hair straightener and/or relaxer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Samuel Geisler, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 Email: sgeisler@awkolaw.com DAILY WIRE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Daily Wire, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Daily Wire, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10766 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Daily Wire -- https://www.dailywire.com/ -- is an American conservative news website and media company founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro and film director Jeremy Boreing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DANONE NORTH: Jasper Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Creamer Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Jasper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07122 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that International Delight brand representation as a "Coffee Creamer" is misleading because it lacks cream or dairy ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading, in violation Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In place of cream, the Product substitutes water and palm oil to reduce costs. The Product is not labeled in a way that distinguishes it from coffee creamers made from cream. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions, the Product is sold at for a price premium of no less than no less than $3.99 for 32 FL OZ (946 mL), excluding tax and sales, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions at locations including Food 4 Less, 7030 S Ashland Ave, Chicago, IL 60636, in 2022, among other times. Danone North manufactures, markets, labels, and sells coffee whitener identified as a coffee creamer under the International Delight brand.[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 DAVE & BUSTER'S: Carroll Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC., a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-09070 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 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.daveandbusters.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 Daveandbusters.com, the 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: nearly 9 in 10 adults are "very concerned" about data privacy, and 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 is a consumer advocated who watched a video on The Website. The Defendant is a Missouri corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website, www.daveandbusters.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 DERMACLINIC NEW: Fails to Pay Laborer's Minimum Wages, Escuted Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN ESCUTED, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DERMACLINIC NEW YORK LLC, VERONICA ALMEIDA, JANE DOE (A/K/A "NIDI"), Case No. 1:22-cv-10685 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay minimum wages, comply with notice and record-keeping requirements and failure to timely pay weekly wages to Plaintiff who was at all relevant times a manual laborer in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, from August 15, 2022, to August 19, 2022, Ms. Escuted worked approximately 35 hours, but was not paid for all hours worked, which unpaid wages amount to $875. Ms. Escuted worked for Defendants from June 24, 2022, to August 19, 2022. She worked as a "medical aesthetician" whose job responsibilities included working while multiple hours, providing body contouring services which involves providing massages and other manual work, providing laser hair removal while standing, providing injections and drawing blood, and providing wood therapy massage. Dermaclinic New York provides massage, liposuction, laser hair removal and other similar services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: 718-269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com DMI: Second Renewed Bid for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED HISHAM ELTAYEB, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELI MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a "JASON'S DELI," Case No. 4:20-cv-00385-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim to proceed as a collective action; 2. directing DMI to identify all delivery drivers they have employed during times relevant; 3. directing DMI to provide the information to the Plaintiff's attorneys within 14 days; and 4. directing the issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to all such persons. DMI will inevitably argue that the claims are too individualized for collective adjudication of liability and damages. However, that argument is belied by their own expert in the Benton litigation, Dr. Thornton. In Benton, Dr. Thornton prepared different class-wide liability and damage spreadsheet calculations on behalf of DMI. To do that, Dr. Thornton, like Plaintiffs, used basic spreadsheets to mechanically apply class-wide estimated vehicle costs to undisputed wages, reimbursement amounts and "additional reimbursements" to determine workweek liability and damage calculations. DMI requires its delivery drivers to furnish their own delivery vehicles and pay out of pocket for all automobile expenses they incur in making deliveries. DMI provides only a partial, and unreasonably low, reimbursement for these costs. DMI previously faced the same claims in Benton v. Deli Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00296-TCB (N.D. Ga.). Benton granted final certification of the FLSA collective action under the FLSA's more-stringent second-stage certification standard. The Plaintiff Mohamed Eltayeb filed this putative collective action claim on May 11, 2020. On January 8, 2021, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Mr. Eltayeb's Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional Certification. On June 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for conditional certification. On December 14, 2021, the Court denied conditional certification, limited the possible collective action class to delivery drivers paid $8.65 per hour or less, and directed the parties to submit a joint proposal for limited discovery to be conducted prior to another conditional certification motion. On May 26, 2022, the Court ordered limited discovery prior to another conditional certification motion. The parties have now conducted the limited discovery ordered by the Court. Based on the results of that discovery, Plaintiff now moves for conditional certification. The Plaintiff Eltayeb previously worked for DMI as a delivery driver. DMI owns and operates "Jason's Deli" brand delicatessens. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jsZNYG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com kserrano@foresterhaynie.com - and - Mark Potashnick, MBE # 41315 WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 Facsimile: (314) 497-5006 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com ETHOS GROUP INC: Fedorys Files Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethos Group Inc. The case is styled as Paul Fedorys, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ethos Group Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02573-M (N.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury. Ethos Group, Inc. -- https://www.ethosgroup.com/ -- provides franchised automotive dealerships. The Company offers vehicle service contracts, credit insurance assistance, lease wear and tear, and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald Wright Armstrong, II, Esq. THE ARMSTRONG FIRM, PLLC 310 S Saint Marys St., Ste. 2700 San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone: (210) 277-0542 Fax: (210) 227-0548 Email: rwaii@tafpllc.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Fax: (510) 891-7030 F45 TRAINING: Goer Sues Over Share Price Dop -------------------------------------------- KENZIE GOER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. F45 TRAINING HOLDINGS, INC., CHRIS PAYNE, ADAM GILCHRIST, MICHAEL RAYMOND, DARREN RICHMAN, AND MARK WAHLBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01291 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of F45, pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading Form S-1 Registration Statement and accompanying Prospectus and Supplemental Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's July 16, 2021 initial public offering of 18.75 million shares of common stock, priced at $16 per share, to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On July 26, 2022, just a year after the IPO, and just a little more than two months after reiterating its growth targets, F45 issued a press release titled "F45 Training Announces Strategic Update." The press release described "strategic updates to align the Company more closely with macroeconomic conditions and current business trends and prepare for the next phase of studio and membership growth." Importantly, more adverse news was disclosed in the July 26, 2022, "Strategic Updates." The Company disclosed that for the full-year net franchises sold would be between 350 and 450, a fraction of the prior guidance of 1,500, and that full-year net initial studio openings would be between 350 and 450, compared to the prior guidance of 1,000. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was materially false and/or misleading because it misrepresented and failed to disclose material adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, F45's rapid growth strategy was unsustainable, reliant on, inter alia, franchisees opening multiple locations in a short period of time and/or dependent on franchisees who required near 100% financing of their operations in order to open for business, a model that was, at the time of the July 2021 IPO, unsustainable. The July 26, 2022 adverse disclosures caused the trading price of F45 to plunge over 60%, from a close at $3.51 on July 26 to close at $1.35 on July 27, 2022 and representing more than a 78% decline from its offering price of $16 per share on July 16, 2021 - just slightly more than a year earlier, says the suit. F45 Training Holdings, Inc. is a fitness franchisor with a business model based on rapid growth through the franchising of low-overhead fitness facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com FANATICS LLC: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Alex Johnson, Jacob Johnson, Samuel Forsythe, and Brian Forsythe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fanatics, LLC d/b/a Fanatics, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-22-18755 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought to remedy the deceptive and illegal business practices of the dependence, charging consumer "sales tax" on clothing items at stores and kiosks during Minnesota Vikings' home games. The Defendant has charged and continues to charge consumer "sales tax" on exempt clothing items purchased inside the U.S. Bank Stadium during Vikings home games. Minn. Stat. Section 297A.67 Subdivision 8 "Clothing" holds "Clothing is exempt from the taxes imposed by this chapter." To clarify any potential confusion that the Minnesota Department of revenue on its website has explicitly issued guidance that nontaxable clothing includes T-shirts, sweatshirts, jerseys, jackets, coats, caps, and hats. As a clothing retailer, the Defendant is required to know and abide by the tax laws of the jurisdiction in which they sell their products. By charging consumer sales tax on clothing items in the U.S. Bank Stadium, Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law, unjust enrichment and common law conversion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and Class Members who purchased tax-exempt clothing and were charged sales tax during the applicable statute of limitations period, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants' products. The Defendant manufactures, advertises and sells Minnesota Vikings apparel throughout the State of Minnesota and throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq. Carter B. Lyons, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (651) 770-9707 Fax: (651) 704-0907 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com carter@consumeriusticecenter.com FIGS INC: Retirement Trust Sues Over Decline in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' AND FIREFIGHTERS' PERSONNEL RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGS, INC., TULCO, LLC, THOMAS TULL, HEATHER HASSON, CATHERINE SPEAR, DANIELLA TURENSHINE, J. MARTIN WILLHITE, JEFFREY D. LAWRENCE, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP LLC, ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., SEELAUS & CO., LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., AND SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-08912 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) is a securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) FIGS Class A common stock between May 27, 2021, and May 12, 2022, inclusive; and/or (ii) FIGS Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around May 27, 2021; and/or (iii) FIGS Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering conducted on or around September 16, 2021. The claims asserted in this complaint are alleged against FIGS, certain of the Company's senior officers, members of FIGS' Board of Directors, a controlling shareholder of the Company, and the underwriters of the IPO and SPO, and arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the SPO Offering Materials and documents incorporated by reference contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts that were required by applicable law and necessary to make the statements therein not misleading. In particular, the SPO Offering Materials reiterated that the Company's access to significant customer data led to "operational efficiencies throughout [its] supply chain [and] inventory management." The SPO Offering Materials also stated that the Company's DTC strategy allowed FIGS to leverage customer data "in all aspects of our business, including apparel design and merchandising, customer acquisition and retention, demand forecasting and inventory optimization." Then, on May 12, 2022, after the market closed, FIGS announced disappointing financial results and slashed its expected sales, gross margin, and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. FIGS attributed the poor financial results to "inventory constraints" which the Company stated were "the primary factor affecting our outlook for the full year." In response to this news, the price of FIGS stock declined by $3.21 per share, or nearly 25%, from a closing price of $12.85 per share on May 12, 2022, to a closing price of $9.64 per share on May 13, 2022, on unusually high trading volume, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of FIGS stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have allegedly suffered significant losses and damages. FIGS Inc. is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and lifestyle brand that primarily sells its products in the United States through the Company's digital platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com FINANCIAL ASSET: Adams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Asset Management Systems Inc. The case is styled as Pearl Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial Asset Management Systems Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-04646-TMC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. -- http://fams.net/-- provides management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq. PRICE LAW GROUP APC 8245 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (818) 600-5585 Email: dawn@pricelawgroup.com FIRST WESTERN: Fleck Revocable Trust Loses Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE AARON H. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck,THE BARBARA G. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, AARON FLECK, and BARBARA G. FLECK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FIRST WESTERN TRUST BANK, CHARLES BANTIS, and ANDREW GODFREY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine M. Arguello entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court agrees with the Defendants that resolving each breach of fiduciary claim will demand more than simply inquiring into the existence of a policy. It will instead require assessing a multitude of factual considerations individualized to each putative class member, including the tax loss harvesting preferences of each client, the communication that occurred between FWTB and each client relating to tax loss harvesting, and the specific characteristics of each client's investment portfolio, other gains and losses, and tax circumstances. Because the evidence sufficient to resolve each breach of fiduciary duty claim will vary significantly from member to member, the question of whether FTWB breached its fiduciary duty to each client is an individual question, not a common question. This case arises from the Defendants' management of two investment accounts for Plaintiffs Aaron and Barbara Fleck. Flecks hired Defendant FWTB to manage two trusts with a total amount of $8 million. The parties signed an Investment Policy Statement which provided, among other things, the amount of the investment, the investment time horizon, a cash flow objective of $500,000 per year, and a risk tolerance described as "stable growth and low level of income; steady growth is expected." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YU5XkH at no extra charge.[CC] FLAT CREEK: Dusel "WARN Act" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDOLF DUSEL, et al., v. FLAT CREEK TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00316-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff Dusel asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the class: "Any employee of Flat Creek who was not given a minimum of 60 days' notice of termination and whose employment was terminated during the 2022 calendar year as a result of a "mass- layoff" or "plant-closing" as defined in CFR section 639.3 and regulated by federal statute as codified under 29 USC section 2101 under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988." Excluded from this Class and any sub-class are: (a) The officers and directors of the defendant; (b) any judge or judicial officer assigned to this matter or his or her immediate family; (c) any legal representative, successor, or assign of any excluded persons or entities. 2. Appointing Rudolf Dusel as class representative; and 3. Appointing Harry P. Hall, II, Ashton H. Ott, and Ernest H. Hornsby as counsel for the class. The Plaintiff and all putative class members were employed by Flat Creek Transportation, LLC, at a single location in Coffee County, Alabama. On March 7, 2022, Flat Creek announced to its employees that it was dissolving and proceeded to immediately terminate over 50 employees with no prior notice. Flat Creek continues to operate on a restricted basis, and apparently is still in the process of winding down. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and as authorized by the WARN Act, on behalf of "other persons similarly situated." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hMIv8u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry P. Hall, Esq. Ashton H. Ott, Esq. Ernest H. Hornsby, Esq. FARMERPRICE LLP 100 Adris Place Dothan, AL 36303 Telephone: (334) 793-2424 E-mail: harry@farmerprice.com ashton@farmerprice.com ernie@farmerprice.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne S. Sumblin, Esq. STONE SUMBLIN LAW LLC 600 Highway 52, P.O. Box 345 Kinston, AL 36453 E-mail: anne@stonesumblinlaw.com - and - Dorman Walker, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78, 36101-0078 105 Tallapoosa Street, Suite 200 Montgomery, AL 36102 E-mail: dwalker@balch.com FORD MOTOR: Bright Sues Over Undisclosed Roof Defect ---------------------------------------------------- Curtis Bright, William Griffitt, Desmond Rains, Ivan Tellez, and Kevin Thomas on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-07264-VC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought arising out of an undisclosed Roof Defect, a design defect in certain Ford Super Duty pick-up trucks. These trucks have a roof designed to withstand less than the weight of the vehicle--meaning that in the event of a rollover accident, the roof structure can collapse and seriously injure or kill vehicle occupants. The frame of a vehicle is the "foundation of strength and toughness" according to Ford Motor Company ("Ford" or "Defendant"). Now, Ford touts the "only high-strength, military-grade, aluminum-allow body in its class" in marketing its Super Duty pick-up trucks. However, until the 2017 model year, Ford's Super Duty trucks had a dangerously weak roof structure susceptible to collapse in the event of a roll-over accident, which can and has seriously injured or killed vehicle occupants. Ford knew of the danger, but did nothing to rectify the dangerously weak roof structure, instead lobbying against rule changes that would have increased roof-strength requirements and continuing to market the Super Duty trucks as safe, tough, and best-in-class. Model year 1999–2016 Ford Super Duty pick-up trucks (hereinafter the "Affected Vehicles" or "Vehicles") have a roof design that is insufficient to support the weight of the vehicles, causing the roofs to be crushed in the event of a rollover accident (the "Roof Defect"). This can result in serious injury or death to occupants of the vehicle in the event of a rollover accident. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated vehicle owners and lessees are now left with Vehicles that may seriously injure or kill them and their passengers in the event of a rollover accident. Due to the undisclosed Roof Defect, Plaintiffs and Vehicle Owners and Lessees were deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing or leasing the Vehicles; further, Plaintiffs and Vehicle Owners and Lessees suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or resale value of their Vehicles. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other current and former owners or lessees of the Vehicles. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, and other equitable relief for Ford's misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Vehicles as alleged in this Complaint. Despite their knowledge, Ford failed to notify Plaintiffs and Vehicle Owners and Lessees of the problem with the roof strength of the Vehicles at the time of purchasing their Vehicles, or at any time thereafter. Ford must buy back these dangerous Vehicles or reimburse the Plaintiffs and Vehicle Owners and Lessees for the serious risk inherent in continuing to drive them. Ford has been unable to develop, implement, and deliver a repair that relieves consumers from their current unsafe and unacceptable circumstances. Even if it could do so tomorrow, Plaintiffs and Vehicle Owners and Lessees would still have suffered economic harm; had Ford disclosed the Roof Defect, consumers would have paid much less for the Vehicles, if they would have bought or leased them at all. This means that the Vehicles were, at the point of purchase and still today, far less valuable than bargained for and reasonably expected because of the Roof Defect. Consumers paid for reasonably expected value during this time period, which the Defect prevented them from receiving, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased vehicles from the Defendant. Ford Motor Company is a Delaware limited liability company. Ford's principal place of business and headquarters is One American Road, Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax (805) 456-1497 Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com FORDWASH PARTNERS: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fordwash Partners LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kimmarie Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fordwash Partners LLC, Benton Heights LLC, DMaritza Cake Shop Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-09881-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fordwash Partners LLC is a business entity registered with the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Phone: (516) 783-9662 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: james@civilrightsny.com FOTO BOYZ: Servidio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Event Planners ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELANIE A. SERVIDIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOTO BOYZ INC., PAW EQUITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FOTOBOYZEVENTS.COM, PHILIP WEXLER, and MICHAEL WEXLER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:22-cv-81950 (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a graphic designer, event planner, and coordinator from October 14, 2020, until April 22, 2022. Foto Boyz Inc. is a marketing event production company based in Boynton Beach, Florida. Paw Equity Holdings, Inc., doing business as fotoboyzevents.com, is a marketing event production company based in Boynton Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FRANK CALDERONI: Pentwater Capital Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank Calderoni, et al. The case is styled as Pentwater Capital Management LP, and others similarly situated v. Frank Calderoni, Gary Spiegel, Robert Beauchamp, Suresh Vasudevan, Susan Bostrom, Vikas Mehta, Case No. 2022-1073-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 23, 2022). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Frank Calderoni is the author of UPSTANDING: How Company Culture Catalyzes Loyalty, Agility, and Hypergrowth and Chairman and CEO of Anaplan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Phone: (302) 573-2540 Fax: (302) 573-2529 - and - Gregory V Varallo, Esq. Phone: (212) 554-1408 Fax: (212) 554-1444 - and - Daniel Meyer, Esq. Phone: (212) 554-1408 Fax: (212) 554-1444 FRONTLINE ASSET: Wycislak FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Caroline Wycislak, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2022CH08526 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 30, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06703 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a consumer-focused, performance-driven organization that delivers compliant solutions through positive experiences and latest technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Ste 1400 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 757-1880 Email: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Seth Barrow Mccormick, Esq. GREAT LAKES CONSUMER LAW FIRM, LLC 73 W. Monroe St., Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 971-6787 Email: seth@glclf.com The Defendants are represented by: Scott Stephen Gallagher, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: (904) 598-6111 Email: sgallagher@sgrlaw.com - and - Nabil G. Foster, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER P.C. 53 W. Jackson Blvd., #1205 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 767-5750 Email: nfoster@bn-lawyers.com - and - Alyssa Ann Johnson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER 333 West Brown Deer Road Unit G-365 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (262) 272-1820 Email: ajohnson@bn-lawyers.com FTX TRADING: Podalsky Sues Over Deceptive Cryptocurrency Platform ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG PODALSKY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-23983 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2022) seeks to recover damages, declaratory and/or injunctive relief stemming from the offer and sale of FTX Trading Ltd.'s entities' yield-bearing cryptocurrency accounts. The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, against Sam Bankman-Fried, Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, Nishad Singh, Sam Trabucco, Dan Friedberg, Tom Brady, Gisele Bundchen, Stephen Curry, Golden State Warriors, Shaquille O’Neal, Udonis Haslem, David Ortiz, William Trevor Lawrence, Shohei Ohtani, Naomi Osaka, Lawrence Gene David, and Kevin O'Leary (collectively, "Defendants"), all parties who either controlled, promoted, assisted in, or actively participated in FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX's and West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US's (collectively, the "FTX Entities"), offer and sale of unregistered securities in the form of yield-bearing accounts (YBAs) to persons and entities residing both inside and outside of the United States. The Plaintiffs' claims arise simply from the purchase of a YBA, an account with FTX that every customer who signed up for the FTX app received by default, and which was guaranteed to generate returns on their significant holdings in the accounts, regardless of whether those assets were held as USD, legal tender or cryptocurrency, and regardless of whether any trades were made with the assets held in the YBA. In other words, the YBA was portrayed to be like a bank account, something that was "very safe" and "protected." That is the narrative that Defendants pushed in promoting the offer and sale of the YBAs, which are unregistered securities. For that, Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' losses, jointly and severally and to the same extent as if they were themselves the FTX Entities, says the suit. The Deceptive and failed FTX Platform emanated from Miami, Florida and was based upon false representations and deceptive conduct. FTX's fraudulent scheme was designed to take advantage of unsophisticated investors from across the globe, who utilize mobile apps to make their investments. As a result, consumers around the globe collectively sustained billions of dollars in damages, the suit alleges. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried is the former chief executive officer of FTX Trading, Ltd., a bankrupt company that formerly operated a cryptocurrency exchange and crypto hedge fund.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com - and - David Boies, Esq. Alex Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749–8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Stephen Neal Zack, Esq. Ursula Ungaro, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com uungaro@bsfllp.com FUNKO LLC: Dorton Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hope Dorton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUNKO, LLC, Case No. 22-CA-008983 was removed from the Superior Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Dec. 21, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02899. The Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks relief from Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members, in purported violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: josh@markmigdal.com yaniv@markmigdal.com eservice@markmigdal.com GANNETT CO: Dismissal of Belozerov Suit Over VPPA Violations Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Serge Belozerov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gannett Co., Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-10838-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The consumer digital privacy class action arises from alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 ("the VPPA"). The Plaintiff brings claims for damages as a result of the alleged violations of the VPPA. Named Plaintiff Belozerov seeks on his own behalf and behalf of persons similarly situated, judicial relief from Gannett, the owner of the newspaper USA Today. He alleges that Gannett unlawfully disclosed his personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook. Belozerov resides in Worcester, Massachusetts. The Defendant is an American media company headquartered in McLean, Virginia that owns more than 260 daily publications, including USA Today. USA Today is one of the most circulated newspapers in the United States. According to the complaint, Gannett collects and shares the personal information of visitors to its website and mobile phone application with third parties through the use of "cookies," software development kits and pixels. Specifically, Gannett had Facebook create a code for a tracking pixel. The tracking pixel is an invisible tool that would enable Gannett to track what video media its users watched on the USA Today website or app and report it to Facebook. Gannett then installed the tracking pixel on its website and app to provide targeted advertising to its users. As alleged in the complaint, Gannett sends Facebook the digital subscriber's Facebook ID and the name and Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") of the video content viewed on the USA Today website or app as one data point. A Facebook ID ("FID") is a unique identifier that can be used to look up an individual's Facebook user account. Together, that information enables Facebook or any computer-savvy person to discern the identity of the digital subscriber and the specific video content he or she viewed on the USA Today website or app. Although USA Today's privacy policy informs users that their website activity and personal information may be shared with third parties for targeted advertising, Gannett purportedly never obtained express consent from its digital subscribers to share their personal information with Facebook. Belozerov has been a USA Today digital subscriber since approximately 2015 and has maintained a Facebook account since approximately 2008. From 2015 to the present, he used his USA Today digital subscription to view videos through the Defendant's website and app. Belozerov alleges that he never consented, agreed, authorized or otherwise permitted the Defendant to disclose his personal information to Facebook. Moreover, he contends that he was not given notice that defendant discloses that information nor any means of opting out of such disclosures. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff's personal information was disclosed without his express written consent to Facebook pursuant to the process described. On June 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Court alleging violations of the VPPA. Belozerov seeks (1) a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action, (2) an order declaring that the Defendant's conduct violates the VPPA, (3) payment of $2,500 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff and each class member pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2710(c)(2)(A), (4) punitive damages, (5) prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, (6) an order of restitution and other forms of equitable monetary relief, (7) injunctive relief and (8) attorneys' fees. The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint in a timely fashion on three grounds: (1) that it is a news provider and does not meet the statutory definition of a "video tape services provider," (2) that the Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that Gannett disclosed PII and (3) that even if it did disclose PII, it did not do so knowingly. Judge Gorton finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly pled that he subscribed to goods and services from a video tape services provider under the VPPA. The First Circuit has already struck down a nearly identical argument made by Gannett six years ago, "declining to interpret the VPPA as incorporating monetary payment as a necessary element, citing Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 820 F.3d 482, 488 (1st Cir. 2016). In their pleadings, both parties characterize the case at bar and Yershov as involving "the same issues." In fact both cases involve consumers' lawsuits against USA Today for violations of the VPPA. Therefore, Judge Gorton follows controlling First Circuit precedent. In its motion to dismiss, Gannett contradicts the alleged facts, contending that Facebook, not the Defendant, placed the tracking pixel on the USA Today website. Such a factual dispute cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss at which stage the Court must treat all non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint as true. The Plaintiff alleges throughout the complaint that the Defendant inserted the code into the USA Today website to transmit users' information to Facebook. Accepting the factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, Judge Gorton finds that it is plausible Gannett disclosed PII under the VPPA. Finally, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Therefore, Judge Gorton finds that that the Plaintiff has plausibly pled that Gannett's disclosure of users' PII was made knowingly. In conclusion, at this early juncture, Judge Gorton holds that the Plaintiff plausibly pleads a violation of the VPPA's prohibition on disclosure of PII. Therefore, he denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rks8uu3 from Leagle.com. GEICO GENERAL: Status Report Submission Extended to Jan. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status report to January 20, 2023. On July 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order staying this matter and ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v. First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am. ("Lara"), Case No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2021). On October 20, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, which the Court granted on October 21, 2022. The motion extended the deadline to submit a joint status report to November 21, 2022. On November 18, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, which the Court granted on November 21, 2022. The motion extended the deadline to submit a joint status report to December 21, 2022. Geico General operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FW8T7R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. Elizabeth T. Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 583-8888 Facsimile: (206) 583-8500 E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com - and - Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Brian J. Hembd, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 - and - Vanessa S. Power, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. Jason R. Burt, Esq. Steven J. Pacini, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com jason.burt@lw.com steven.pacini@lw.com GEN DIGITAL: Illegally Collects & Sells Consumers' Data, Lau Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE LAU and CHRISTOPHER KARWOWSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEN DIGITAL INC. and JUMPSHOT INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-08981 (N.D. Cal., December 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Right to Privacy under California Constitution, Statutory Larceny under California Penal Code, the California Unfair Competition Law, and for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal electronic surveillance of their customers and invasion of their customers' privacy by intercepting, collecting, and storing their Internet search engine keyword searches, search results, and email inbox searches. At issue in this action are two Gen Digital and Avast products, the Avast Online Security & Privacy (AOSP) and the Avast SafePrice browser extensions for the Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge Internet browsers. According to Avast, AOSP protects users' privacy, secures users' browsers against online threats and phishing scams, keeps users' online activities private and anonymous, disguises users' online profile, and prevents tracking on every website the user visits. SafePrice is marketed as providing the best prices, deals, and coupons while shopping online. However, both of these products secretly collect and store the users' data in such a systematic way that they effectively create a live feed of millions of users' Internet browsing data. Furthermore, Avast and Jumpshot entered into a licensing agreement pursuant to which Avast licensed to Jumpshot the consumer data it had collected, and which it claimed to own. In return, Jumpshot paid a fee to Avast for the data. Avast knew that Jumpshot was selling the user data to third parties. Avast failed to prohibit Jumpshot from selling that data, or to impose any meaningful limits on Jumpshot's use of the data it licensed to Jumpshot, says the suit. Gen Digital Inc. is a computer software company headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. Jumpshot Inc. is a computer software company based in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Oliver Rocos, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com orocos@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. David J. Stone, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com dstone@glancylaw.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq. Claire E. Bosarge, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com aklevorn@burnscharest.com cbosarge@burnscharest.com GENERAC POWER: Basler Sues Over Defective System Components ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Kibert Basler, Gail Amend, Violet Wheat, Michael Donley, Becky Herrington, Juan Leon, Barbara Quednau, Lisa Goeke, Kerri Vincent, Miles Fawcett, Christian Figueroa, Kevin Hemphill, Geoff Edwards, and Lori Morse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01386-NJ (E.D. Wis., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought concerning clean energy management systems designed and manufactured by Generac, which contain a defective component and were subsequently sold to consumers across the United States. As a part of its clean energy offerings, Generac manufactures the PWRcell system (the "System"), which it represents as "the complete clean energy system." According to Generac, "The PWRcell system is not just a powerful battery, but is also the most flexible and scalable home energy system on the market." Furthermore, Generac boasts that "PWRcell offers 30% more power output than our competitors, and it offers more storage capacity." The System takes electricity produced by solar panels (not part of the PWRcell system but must be integrated into the System) and gives consumers the option of managing how that electricity is used, either for powering their homes, for storage in a generator, for storage in back-up batteries, or for net-metering (selling electricity back to the utility company that traditionally powered the consumer's home). A consumer can program how the electricity is used and track electricity production from within a Generac phone application. Unfortunately, consumers do not receive the benefits of a fully functional System because the System contains a design and/or manufacturing defect, described in more detail supra, that renders it unsuitable for its intended use. Specifically, each System contains "SnapRS" connector components (the "Snaps"). During the course of normal and expected use of the System, the Snaps will overheat, melt, explode, and otherwise malfunction (the "Defect"). Without properly functioning SnapRS units, the System's performance declines or ceases. Generac has undertaken a deliberate and willful pattern of conduct (including taking active measures) aimed at concealing the Defect from its consumers, including Plaintiffs and putative Class Members. Generac knew or should have known about the Defect but nevertheless marketed, advertised, and sold the Systems without disclosing the Defect or warning consumers that the Snaps overheat, melt, explode, or otherwise malfunction. Generac fails to disclose the known Defect or provide consumers with a non-defective replacement. Indeed, rather than providing consumers with new, non-defective Snaps after they fail as a result of the Defect, Generac fails to provide a non-defective replacement component capable of remedying the problem and/or improperly denies consumers' warranty claims. Generac's purported solution, its newest version of the Snaps (the 802s), fails just as earlier models did. As a direct and proximate result of Generac's concealment of the Defect, its failure to warn customers about the Defect before their purchase, and its failure to recall the Systems or remedy the Defect, Plaintiffs and putative Class Members purchased the defective Systems when they otherwise would not have made such purchases on the same terms or at all, or would not have paid as much for the defective Systems. The Plaintiffs and putative Class Members' Systems failed or are likely to fail as a result of the Defect when they attempted to use the Systems as intended, resulting in damaged and unusable Systems. The Plaintiffs and putative Class Members' Systems contain the uniform Defect at the point-of-sale and Generac's Systems cannot be used for their intended purpose of safely and reliably managing electricity, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased one of the aforementioned Systems. Generac "manufactures the widest range of power products in the marketplace including portable, residential, commercial and industrial generators."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: sharris@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: hsegui@milberg.com - and - Thomas Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 15453 Indianola Drive Derwood, MD 20855 Phone: (212) 946-9305 Email: tpacheco@milberg.com - and - Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. Alex Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: jcohen@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com GMRI INC: Benitez Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rafael Ramos Benitez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GMRI, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00044212-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 22, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02031-L-JLB. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains five causes of action alleging: failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain required records in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay all wages upon termination of employment in violation of California Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie A Dunne, Esq. Matthew Riley, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.699.2700 Fax: 619.699.2701 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com GOJET AIRLINES: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Brown Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HAMPTON S. BROWN, ET AL., Respondent v. GOJET AIRLINES, LLC, Appellant, Case No. ED110645 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four, affirms the trial court's order denying the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration. The Appellant appeals the judgment of the 21st Judicial Circuit denying its motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract action filed by Respondent Brown. The Appellant is a limited liability company organized in Delaware with headquarters in Bridgeton, Missouri. The Respondent is a resident of Austria. In November 2019, the Respondent applied online to work for the Appellant. The application included an arbitration agreement providing the parties agreed to arbitrate "any and all claims, disputes, or controversies" related to Respondent's employment. The Appellant hired Respondent as a pilot on Jan. 21, 2020. On that date, the parties entered a bonus agreement providing the Respondent would be paid bonuses tied to the duration of his employment. The Respondent would be paid $46,000 in bonuses during his first year, including: $10,000 after successful completion of training; $10,000 after six months of employment; and $26,000 after one year of employment. The agreement also provided for bonuses in Respondent's second and third year. Respondent was terminated on April 15, 2021. On Nov. 17, 2021, the Respondent filed a petition for class action relief alleging the Appellant breached the bonus agreement by failing to issue bonuses he and other employees qualified for. The Appellant moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under section 435.355, arguing the parties entered a mutually binding and enforceable arbitration agreement that requires them to arbitrate this dispute. The Respondent argued the trial court could not compel arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act exempts workers engaged in interstate commerce and the arbitration agreement did not include the statutory notice provision required by section 435.460. The Appellant filed a reply motion arguing the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate the threshold issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator. It quoted the arbitration agreement, which provides the arbitrator, and not any court, "shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the formation, enforceability, applicability, or interpretation of this Agreement." The Appellant argued the statutory notice provision was not required because the arbitration agreement was a standalone agreement. On May 27, 2022, the trial court denied the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement did not include the notice of an arbitration provision required by section 435.460. The appeal follows. GoJet raises two points on appeal. In Point I, it argues the trial court erred in considering and ruling on the Respondent's challenges to the arbitration agreement because it includes a delegation provision directing an arbitrator to determine threshold questions of arbitrability. In Point II, the Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration because no statutory notice provision was required. With respect to Point I, assuming, without deciding, the parties' arbitration agreement was properly in evidence before the trial court, the Court of Appeals holds that it is not enforceable. Because the plain language of the parties' arbitration agreement provides the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") controls and Respondent is exempt from the FAA under Section 1, the trial court did not err in declining to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's judgment on any theory supported by the record. Regarding Point II, as the Court of Appeals stated in Point I, there is no enforceable arbitration agreement. It need not address Point II on its merits. Because the parties agreed the arbitration agreement would be interpreted and enforced pursuant to the FAA and Section 1 of the FAA exempts its application to Respondent the arbitration agreement is not enforceable. The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals denies Points I & II and affirms the judgment of the trial court. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5chyvkdj from Leagle.com. GOLDEN UNICORN: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to seal their Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Class Certification, due December 21, 2022. As per the Court's Order of December 20, 2022, the Defendant will file a motion to seal on or before December 30, 2022, after receiving Plaintiff's class certification brief and exhibits. Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of spoken word content. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vgkx8D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell Breit, Esq. Leland Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com lbelew@milberg.com - and - Gary W. Jackson, Esq. Christopher Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 287-5037 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com cbagley@farrin.com GOODNESS ORGANIC: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Chavez, and Valenciano Chavez on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Goodness Organic Deli Corp., and Ali Alotani, Case No. 1:22-cv-10795-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 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, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). The Plaintiffs were required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiffs regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiffs of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as deli men and general workers at Goodness Organic Market. The Defendants own, operate and/or control the deli located in New York City ("Goodness Organic Market").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Revise Case Schedule Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting in part the plaintiffs' motion to revise the case schedule by either four or six months due to Google's alleged delays in producing discovery. As a threshold matter, the Court finds that plaintiffs' request for Calhoun cross-use data is improper. In the Court's June 24, 2022 Order, the Court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to present any discovery from Calhoun to Judge DeMarchi for a determination of whether such discovery should also be produced in this matter. The Plaintiffs' request under the four-month extension appears to be an attempt around this process. Thus, the request that Google produce the 20,000 documents is denied. After consulting with Judge DeMarchi, the Court further finds that both parties have contributed to the delay in discovery in this matter. The Court understands that Google has caused 16 some delay in failing to produce relevant documents, and plaintiffs have caused delay by failing to narrow their discovery requests. Nonetheless, given the parties' pending discovery disputes, the Court finds that good cause exists to modify the case schedule on the four-month timeframe as requested. Trial will be set after resolving the anticipated motion on class certification. The parties have also submitted narrowly tailored requests to seal discovery materials and pleadings derivative of discovery materials. Most of the information filed under seal was not relevant to the Court's final order. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the motions to seal at Dockets Number 374, 377, 379, 386, and 388 are granted. This Order terminates Docket Number 373, 377, 379, 386, and 388. 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. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YJ7zh3 at no extra charge.[CC] GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Hicks Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elizabeth Hicks, an Individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Corporation with Headquarters in California, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00038827-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 22, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02038-JLS-DDL. The Plaintiff alleges throughout the four years prior to the filing of this action, Grimmway advertised, and continues to advertise, false information related to its sustainable agriculture processes. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff amended her complaint to allege, inter alia, that the class of consumers she represents includes "any out of state resident in the state of California and who purchased Grimm way goods/products, for personal use and not for resale, or during the time period from September 30, 2018, through the present (the 'Class')." The Plaintiff claims that such practices constitute untrue or misleading advertising under California's False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code, unfair competition under Business & Professions Code, and California Civil Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy K Branson, Esq. Richard Spirra, Esq. Joni B Flaherty, Esq. Patrick J Mulkern, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-7441 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 Email: tbranson@grsm.com rspirra@grsm.com jflaherty@grsm.com pmulkern@grsm.com GROUP SOLAR USA: Lojewski Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Group Solar USA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rafal Lojewski, Smith Garcia, Danielle Garcia, Manuel Acevedo, Isamar Delacruz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Group Solar USA, LLC, Solar Mosaic, Inc., Salal Credit Union, Daniel Yomtobian Corp. d/b/a Solar Program, Case No. 1:22-cv-10816-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Group Solar USA is a solar energy equipment supplier in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 500-6114 Fax: (646) 612-7996 Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net GROUPON INC: Salon Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Business Goodwill ------------------------------------------------------------------ SALON PHOENIX COSMETOLOGY LLC and SALON HAIRROIN, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUPON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07162 (N.D. Ill., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair competition, false affiliation, and false advertising under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the New Jersey Unfair Competition Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of misappropriating the reputation and goodwill of other businesses, including the Plaintiffs, by falsely affiliating them with Groupon and inaccurately describing their services. Groupon does not pay businesses for the privilege of using their information and inaccurately describing them on their website. Groupon profited as a result of its deceptive acts, says the suit. Salon Phoenix Cosmetology LLC is an owner and operator of a hair salon, located in Hoboken, New Jersey. Salon Hairroin, Inc. is an owner and operator of a hair salon, located in Los Angeles, California. Groupon, Inc. is an online store company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. Adam Pollock, Esq. George Krebs, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: Rafi@PollockCohen.com Adam@PollockCohen.com GKrebs@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob S. Briskman, Esq. 2054 N. California Ave Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (312) 945- 6207 E-mail: Jacob.Briskman@gmail.com HAITI: S.D. New York Dismisses Pierre Suit v. General Consulate --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARC PIERRE, attorney in fact, national agent and representative of the Republic of Haiti and Haitian diaspora; DENISE JEAN-JACQUES; ISABELLE PIERRE; SONY LOUIS; JEAN MERISIER; JEAN CHARLOT; BENSE MACKENSON; KHADIJA RAHMN-AKSP; JIMMY MICHEL; MARTHA BRIGARDE; PETERSON JACINTHE; JOLINE CAMILLE, Plaintiffs v. CONSULATE GENERAL OF HAITI; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee Ens Legis UNITED STATES; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee France; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee Canada; De-facto; Unelected; Transitional Administration of Ariel Henry, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-8504 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses all claims brought on behalf of Haiti and the individual plaintiffs. Judge Swain grants Pierre 30 days' leave to assert any claims he wishes to bring on his own behalf. By order dated Nov. 4, 2022, the Court granted Pierre's request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. Pierre, who is appearing pro se, brings the action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, seeking the $20 million paid to France in 1888 due to the 1825 Royal Ordinance of Charles X. He styles the action as a class action and seeks this relief on behalf of Haiti. He also includes in the caption of the complaint the names of individual plaintiffs who have not signed the complaint, which is 479 pages long. Pierre brings the action on behalf of the country of Haiti, an organization called Haiti Reformation Project, and individuals who are citizens of Haiti. He alleges that his claims concern violations that occurred at the International Court of Justice, on the part of the United Nations, as well as other countries and entities, concerning matters involving Haiti. The complaint repeats the same allegations throughout the complaint, including Pierre's allegation that it is an action at law to redress the utilization of the United Nations by the ens legis United States for the deprivation of the rights and privileges of the participants of this class-action under Color of Law and the disenfranchisement of the people of the Republic of USA and Haiti by Washington DC thru the CESTUI QUE VIE Trust and CORE Group/CORE Group OSA Trust. Pierre asserts that he seeks the enforcement of the "Haiti Reformation Project," an "accord" issued by him on March 26, 2021, which "is based upon Haiti Wiki-Leaks; Unilateral Declaration on Behalf of Haiti dated October 17 of 2018; Petrocaribe scandal and grass-roots movement of Operation Tabula-Rasa." He and the Haiti Reformation Project served the US State Department; the former administration of President Jovenel Moise; the United Nations and the Republic of Venezuela with a request to go to Haiti and investigate the Petrocaribe scandal, to no avail. Pierre claims, however, that Haitian President Moise, who had a National Referendum for a new Constitution scheduled for April 25, 2021, rescheduled the referendum upon reception of the Haiti Reformation Project/Tabula-Rasa Accord, to include the Haitian diaspora. The Plaintiff concludes that Moise's assassination was authorized by the Ens Legis United States for executing some of the mandates of the Haiti Reformation Project/Tabula-Rasa Accord. First, Judge Swain finds that although Pierre identifies as an "attorney-in-fact," as a nonlawyer, he can only represent his own interests. Aside from describing Pierre as an attorney-in-fact, the complaint does not suggest that Pierre is licensed to practice law. Judge Swain therefore dismisses without prejudice any claims Pierre is asserting on behalf of Haiti and the individual plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint, that is: Denise Jean-Jacques; Isabelle Pierre; Sony Louis; Jean Merisier; Jean Charlot; Bense Mackenson; Khadija Rahmn-Aksp; Jimmy Michel; Martha Brigarde; Peterson Jacinthe; Joline Camille. Pierre seeks relief under the ATCA, a federal statute that gives district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The complaint does not suggest that Pierre seeks relief on his own behalf or that any defendant violated his rights under the ATCA. Because he is proceeding pro se, however, Judge Swain grants him leave to amend his complaint as follows. In the "Statement of Claim" section of the amended complaint form, the Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If he has an address for any named defendant, he must provide it. The Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that he wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. Essentially, the Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why the Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because the Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that he wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. In light of the foregoing, Judge Swain dismisses all claims brought on behalf of Haiti and Denise Jean-Jacques; Isabelle Pierre; Sony Louis; Jean Merisier; Jean Charlot; Bense Mackenson; Khadija Rahmn-Aksp; Jimmy Michel; Martha Brigarde; Peterson Jacinthe; Joline Camille. Judge Swain grants the Plaintiff 30 days' leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards she set forth. The Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit, caption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 22-CV-8504 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If he fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Swain certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr29ycb2 from Leagle.com. HAKUNA SERVICES: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hakuna Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cesar Mejia, as an individual on behlaf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hakuna Services, Inc., Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22603039 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Hakuna is a tech-enabled home care service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Comes, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEL COMES, MARKEITH MITCHELL, and DUANE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Markeith Mitchell and Mel Comes ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes and subclass: 1. Class for a strict liability claim: "All individuals in the District of Columbia and the following 43 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased the recalled jackstands (items numbered 56371, 61196, and 61197) that were sold by the Defendant for household use and suffered property damage as a result of the failure of those jack stands. Persons who suffered personal injury caused by the jackstands, as well as all employees of the Court and plaintiffs' counsel, are excluded." 2. With regard to the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability claim, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All individuals in states that have adopted the UCC provision on implied warranty of merchantability (all states except Louisiana) who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased the recalled jackstands (items numbered 56371, 61196, and 61197) that were sold by Defendant for household use and suffered property damage as a result of the failure of those jack stands. Persons who suffered personal injury caused by the jackstands, as well as all employees of the Court and plaintiffs' counsel, are excluded." 3. With regard to the negligence claim, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All consumers nationwide who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased the recalled jackstands (items numbered 56371, 61196, and 61197) that were sold by Defendant for household use and suffered property damage as a result of the failure of those jack stands. Persons who suffered personal injury caused by the jackstands, as well as all employees of the Court and plaintiffs' counsel, are excluded." 4. Finally, Plaintiff Comes seeks to certify the following California subclass: "All consumers who are residents of California who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased any of the recalled Harbor Freight Pittsburgh Automotive jackstands (items numbered 56371, 61196, and 61197) and suffered property damage caused by the failure of the jackstands, or who purchased defective aluminum jackstands with product numbers 56357, 61627, 91760. Claims for personal injury caused by the jack stands, as well as all employees of the Court and plaintiffs' counsel, are excluded. 5. certifying Markeith Mitchell and Mel Comes as class representatives; 6. certifying Davis & Norris, LLP as Class Counsel. The case was about a hepatitis outbreak traced to some berry powder sold at Costco. The Plaintiffs seek three primary forms of damages: (1) economic damages for those class members who paid out-of-pocket for vaccinations, (2) lost wages, and (3) non-economic damages. Plaintiffs have proposed that class members can "provide receipts to prove actual out-of-pocket expenses," offer an approximation of a reasonable lost wages amount, and use past settlement amounts and testimony to adequately measure non-economic damages. The proposed class and subclass in this case easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendant, Harbor Freight, was the only seller of the jackstands at issue and had a direct relationship to the manufacturer of the stands. Harbor Freight has produced thousands of pages of documents showing that its employees participated in the inadequate testing of the jackstands. Harbor Freight then marketed and sold the defective stands to hundreds of thousands of consumers. With respect to the steel stands, Harbor Freight then initiated an inadequate recall that allowed some customers to get refunds for the costs of the jacks, but did not set up any way for purchasers to recover for damage or injuries that their faulty products inevitably caused. Harbor Freight is a retailer of automotive and other tools based in Calabasas, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vibVhE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dargan Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Andrew Wheeler-Berliner, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930.9900 E-mail: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com andrew@davisnorris,com HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Files Bid to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEL COMES, et al., on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Duane Thomas asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying case as a class action. The Motion is made on the following grounds: -- The Class Jackstands have a design defect and the class of consumers is entitled to recover damages for this defect that existed at the time of sale, as well as other damages pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), thereby satisfying Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -- Class issues predominate and are superior to other available methods of relief for the consumers affected by the alleged defects in the jackstands, satisfying Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpXLHo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Schwaba, Esq. 212 South Tryon Street, Suite 1725 Charlotte, NC 28281 Telephone: (704) 370-0220 Facsimile: (704) 370-0210 E-mail: aschwaba@schwabalaw.com - and - R. Kevin Fisher, Esq. 2121 Park Drive Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (310) 862-1220 Facsimile: (310) 388-0805 E-mail: rkf@fkslaw.net HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE 1, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled John Doe 1, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harris County, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-03036, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case type is stated as Other Civil Rights. The appellate case is captioned Doe 1 v. Harris County, Case No. 22-20652, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOE 1, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: David James Batton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BATTON P.O. Box 1285 Norman, OK 73070 Telephone: (405) 310-3432 Defendants-Appellees HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al. are represented by: James Carroll Butt, Esq. Jennifer Farleo Callan, Esq. HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1019 Congress Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 274-5133 (713) 274-5146 HEALTH FIRST: Court Junks Colucci's Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY COLUCCI; and VANESSA LORRAINE SKIPPER, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:21-cv-00681-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. overruling Plaintiffs' Objection that the MJ Order limiting discovery to inpatient or emergency treatments should be reversed, reiterating the same arguments made in the Motion; and 3. affirming The MJ Order that individuals who received non- emergency outpatient care fell outside the class and disallowed discovery into those treatments. Judge Baker concluded, as the Court just did, that Plaintiffs' pleaded definition of the class included individuals that either received inpatient care or emergency care. Judge Baker acted within his discretion in managing and resolving discovery disputes. The Plaintiffs fail to show that the MJ Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, especially given the Court's analysis above interpreting the class in the same manner. So the Objection is due to be overruled. 6 In this antitrust case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant engages in anticompetitive practices in the acute health care market. The Defendant owns four hospitals and allegedly dominates the acute care market. The Plaintiffs move to certify a damage and injunctive class consisting of: "Patients, and health plans, who purchase Health First inpatient and emergency room acute care from Health First." The class seeks relief for their direct payments to Health First for this relevant acute care on or after April 19, 2017. For patients who are insured by health plans, such payments are defined as their co-insurance payments computed as percentages of Health First's acute care fees, and not limited by health plan annual, out-of-pocket maximums or otherwise. Health First provides medical and surgical hospital services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vdQ0rR at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH IQ: Evans Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE LYNN EVANS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HI.Q, INC. d/b/a, HEALTH IQ, Case No. 3:22-cv-01400 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff's employment with Defendant began on April 9, 2022 as a sales agent in Duval County, Florida, and was terminated as part of a "mass layoff" as defined by the WARN Act. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to provide their full-time employees and part-time employees with the sixty-day notice required under the WARN Act prior to terminating more than 500 of those workers on December 8, 2022. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday or vacation pay which would have accrued for 60 days following their respective termination without notice and failure to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant until her termination without cause on or about December 8, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Woodside, Esq. Woodside Law, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 606-4872 Facsimile: (813) 333-9845 HFS FINANCIAL: Faces Sidle Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ JASON SIDLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HFS FINANCIAL LLC and LARRY COLLINS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03289-JMC (D. Md., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated loan consultants overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a loan consultant from August 2018 until November of 2022. HFS Financial LLC is a financial services provider in Baltimore County, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 North White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com HI.Q INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quiles v. Hi.Q, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00669 (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 Other Statutes involving Notice Required Before Plant Closings and Mass Layoffs.[CC] HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA M.F. KIM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Lisa Kim, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Board of Education of Howard County, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00655-DKC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this action against the Board to challenge the selection process for the Student Member of the Board. They claim that the process violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. On Mar. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class "of all persons in Howard County who are in malapportioned school-board districts and who are prevented from voting for the Student Member because they are not students in the Howard County Public Schools System in grades 6-11." On Apr. 27, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. On Nov. 18, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case and denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow. The court ruled that the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible Equal Protection Clause claim and also fail to plausibly allege that the Student Member statute burdens religion. Hence, the complaint was dismissed and the motion to certify class was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Lisa Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County, Case No. 22-2294, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on December 20, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LISA M.F. KIM, individually and as parent and next friend of J.K, are represented by: John Christian Adams, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION 1555 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (317) 203-5599 - and - Charlotte M. Davis, Esq. Noel H. Johnson, Esq. Kaylan Lytle Phillips, Esq. Maureen S. Riordan, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION 32 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (615) 294-6476 (317) 203-5599 - and - Michael Francis Smith, Esq. SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 454-2860 Defendant-Appellee BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY is represented by: Mary B. McCord, Esq. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 661-6607 - and - Joseph Wilfred Mead, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY & PROTECTION 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (734) 330-9005 J.M. SMUCKER: Reports Website Visitors' Info to FB, Carroll Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation d/b/a FOLGERSCOFFEE.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08952 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendants violate the Video Privacy Protection Act by secretly reporting all the details to Facebook: the visitor's identity, the titles watched, and more, whenever someone watches a video on www.folgerscoffee.com. Accordingly, when the Plaintiff watched videos on Folgerscoffee.com, the Defendants disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the video's title, description, and URL. Alongside this event data, Defendants also disclosed identifiers for the Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr cookies. The Defendants allegedly utilized the Facebook Tracking Pixel to compel the Plaintiff's web browser to transfer the Plaintiff's identifying information, like his Facebook ID, along with Plaintiff's event data, like the title of the videos he viewed. The Defendants knowingly disclosed the Plaintiff's PII because it used that data to build audiences on Facebook and retarget them for its advertising campaigns, the suit contends. The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide Defendants with any form of consent -- either written or otherwise -- to disclose their PII to third parties, the Plaintiff claims. As such, Defendants are liable to each class member for $2,500 and related relief. The Plaintiff is a consumer advocated who watched a video on the Website. J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com KASHI SALES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Hoffman Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, PETER HOFFMANN, Plaintiff v. KASHI SALES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 21 CV 9642 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.). Hoffman brings this putative class action against Kashi Sales, alleging violations of Sections 349 and 350 of New York's General Business Law ("GBL"); violations of the consumer fraud acts of Montana, Virginia, Delaware, and Kansas; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); fraud; and unjust enrichment, all based on the assertion that defendant misrepresents the amount of strawberry and honey in its "Ripe Strawberry Soft Baked Breakfast Bars." At issue in the case are statements made on the packaging of the Defendant's "Ripe Strawberry Soft Baked Breakfast Bars." The Plaintiff alleges the Product's front packaging prominently displays the words "Ripe Strawberry" and, in smaller letters, "Made with Wildflower Honey," "3g Fiber," "10g Whole Grains," and "Non GMO Project Verified." The back label depicts two large, "fresh, ripe" strawberries and scattered oats, and reads, in relevant part, "These bars were made for you with love. Love for simple ingredients, like strawberries and whole grains." The back label also describes the Product as "Simply Delicious" and "Delightfully Nutritious." According to the Plaintiff, the Product's label leads reasonable consumers to expect more strawberry ingredients in the filling than non-strawberries, and more honey than non-honey sweetening ingredients. He alleges the Product's filling actually contains more apples and pears than strawberries, and the Product as a whole contains more sugar and tapioca syrup than honey. He further alleges defendant supports the false impression that the Product contains more strawberries than it does by adding red elderberry juice concentrate to the Product's filling to boost its red color. In addition, he contends the Defendant's reputation as "a leading seller of organic and healthy snacks, known for being transparent with its ingredients and corporate identity," encourages consumers to trust its labels. The Plaintiff claims consumers prefer strawberries to apples and pears, in part because strawberries confer health benefits that apples and pears do not, and that consumers seek out products sweetened with honey instead of sugar because honey occurs naturally and has a lower glycemic index. Therefore, he alleges he and the putative class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much for it if they had known the truth regarding the strawberry and honey content relative to other fruits and sweeteners, respectively. Now pending is the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). First, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged the Product's labeling is deceptive because no reasonable consumer would believe (i) the Product's filling contained only, or even primarily, strawberries, or (ii) the statement "Made with Wildflower Honey" meant anything other than that the Product contained honey (which it does). Judge Briccetti opines that at this early stage in the litigation, he cannot say it is impossible for the Plaintiff to prove a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by the Product's packaging into believing the Product's strawberry filling, to the extent it contains fruit, contains predominantly strawberries. The Product does contain strawberries, and the ingredients list on the packaging reflects this. However, some presence of strawberries combined with an accurate ingredients list does not foreclose the possibility that the packaging is misleading. Accordingly, although it is a close call, Judge Briccetti concludes the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged the representations on the Product's packaging could mislead a reasonable consumer into believing the Product's predominant fruit ingredient is strawberries. Likewise, Judge Briccetti cannot say it is impossible a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by the statement "Made with Wildflower Honey" into believing the Product was predominantly sweetened with honey. He says the Defendant's use of the words "Made with" presents honey as an ingredient, not a flavor. Thus, based on the Plaintiff's allegations, he cannot conclude it is impossible for a reasonable consumer to be misled into believing the Product was predominantly sweetened with honey (not tapioca syrup or sugar). Accordingly, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a reasonable consumer could be misled that honey is the Product's predominant sweetener. The Plaintiff's GBL 349 and 350 claims may proceed. The Plaintiff also purports to represent a "Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class" with members in Montana, Virginia, Delaware, and Kansas, and alleges defendant's conduct violates the consumer protection acts of those states. The parties agree each of the Other Consumer Protection Statutes employs a "reasonable consumer" standard similar to GBL 349 and 350. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a reasonable consumer could be misled by the representations on the Product's packaging, his claims alleging violations under the Other Consumer Protection Statutes will proceed. The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim must be dismissed for failure to allege he provided sufficient pre-suit notice. Judge Briccetti agrees. He opines that the Plaintiff does not allege a similar history of prior complaints that would have put defendant on timely notice of the alleged breach in addition to his complaint. The limited exception also waives the pre-suit notice requirement in cases involving physical or personal injury as a result of the Defendant's alleged breach, neither of which is alleged. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim must be dismissed. The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's breach of implied warranty claim must be dismissed because he was not in privity with defendant. Judge Briccetti again agrees. He opines that the Plaintiff alleges he purchased the Product from stores including a ShopRite store in White Plains, New York, not directly from defendant. Thus, he is not in privity with the Defendant. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges only economic loss, not personal injury. Accordingly, his claim for breach of implied warranty must be dismissed. The Defendant then argues the Plaintiff's MMWA claim must be dismissed because he did not allege the Product contained a written warranty. Judge Briccetti dismisses the claim but for a different reason. Because the Plaintiff's warranty claims are dismissed, the MMWA claims must also be dismissed. Although the MMWA is a federal statute, liability under the MMWA is based on state warranty laws. Thus, the Plaintiff's claim under the MMWA stands of falls with his state-law warranty claims. Accordingly, his MMWA claim must be dismissed. The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff's fraud claim must be dismissed because he fails to allege fraudulent intent. Judge Briccetti agrees. He opines that the Plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent intent are conclusory. Nor do the Plaintiff's factual allegations show the Defendant possessed either a strong motive to commit fraud or actual knowledge of fraud. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's fraud claim must be dismissed. Finally, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, plead a claim for unjust enrichment because it is duplicative of his other claims. Judge Briccetti agrees. The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of his other claims. He alleges the Defendant "committed actionable wrongs" by placing misleading representations on the Product's packaging, and it was therefore enriched at his expense. This is the same factual allegation that underlies the Plaintiff's statutory, contract, and tort law claims. Accordingly, his unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Briccetti grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law and the consumer protection statutes of Montana, Virginia, Delaware, and Kansas will proceed. All other claims are dismissed. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/336s7rx6 from Leagle.com. KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Chicas Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ALVAREZ CHICAS, ALONSO VILLATORO, MISAEL ALEXANDER MARTINEZ CASTRO, ANGEL MARTINEZ, EDWIN ULLOA MOREIRA and MATEO UMAÑA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., KELCO LANDSCAPING, INC., E.L.M. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. D/B/A KELLY'S CREW, JOHN KELLY and JOSEPH PROVENZANO, Case No. 1:21-cv-09014-PAE-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting Leave to give notice of this action as a representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. § 216, to the following collective classes: a. All hourly employees of Kelco Construction, Inc. who, at any time during the three year period prior to the filing of the complaint and up to the present time, received wages from Kelco and E.L.M. General Construction Corp. for the same workweek; b. All hourly Kelco employees who drove company vehicles at any time during the three year period prior to the filing of the complaint and up to the present time; c. All hourly ELM employees who worked at any time during the three year period prior to the filing of the complaint and up to the present time. 2. Directing Defendants to produce three excel spreadsheets (one for each proposed class) containing the name, last known mailing address, email address, cell phone number, job title, dates of employment with Kelco, and dates of employment with ELM of each putative collective member within 0 business days of this Court's order; 3. Approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form annexed to this Notice of Motion; 4. Directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice by first class mail and email to each putative collective member in English and Spanish within 10 days of production of the aforementioned excel spreadsheets; 5. Granting Plaintiffs' counsel eave to send a text message to each putative collective action member in English and Spanish, within 10 days of the production of the excel spreadsheet: 6. Setting an opt-in period of 60 days following the date on which the Notice is sent for opt-in members to mail or email completed consent forms to Plaintiffs' Counsel (the "Opt-In Period"); 7. Granting Plaintiffs' counsel leave to send a text reminder 30 days before the close of the Opt-In Period; and 8. Directing the defendants to post the Notice in a prominent location at each jobsite where employees work for the entire duration of the opt-in period, and to file an affidavit of compliance with the posting requirements within 10 days of the close of the opt-in period. Kelco is a landscape construction and maintenance firm located in the New York Metro area focused on complex site work, landscape on structure and logistics. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gl6RQ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 E. Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com KIRKLAND LAKE: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken entered an order nodifying case schedule as follows: Event New Deadline -- Fact Discovery Completion of all fact discovery: July 5, 2023 Substantial completion of document: Completed discovery: Interrogatories shall be served: Two months before completion of all discovery Depositions shall be completed: July 5, 2023 -- Class Certification Motion for class certification January 31, 2023 and Plaintiff's expert reports: Discovery requests to Plaintiffs January 31, 2023 re class certification: Deposition of Lead Plaintiff March 6, 2023 Deposition of Plaintiff's class March 10, 2023 certification expert Opposition to class certification March 30, 2023 and Defendants' expert reports: Deposition of Defendants' class April 24, 2023 certification expert: Reply ISO class certification May 7, 2023 motion and expert reports: Kirkland Lake was a Canadian gold mining company, based in Toronto, that owned and operated several gold mines in Canada and Australia. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WjK4cS at no extra charge.[CC] KORENS USA: Collective Action Settlement in Taunton Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANDON TAUNTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KORENS USA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00844-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of collective action Settlement and approving the proposed settlement. The further ordered that the case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court retains jurisdiction over any matters necessary to enforce the settlement. The parties ask the Court to approve an agreement settling three plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not pay all overtime bonuses earned for work performed over a three-year period. He seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Court previously granted the parties' joint motion for conditional certification, preliminary approval of collective action settlement, and distribution of notice. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GiXiRN at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Avigne May File Amended Complaint to Remedy Deficiencies ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANET AVIGNE and LAUREN MORGAN, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-11889 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint to remedy the alleged deficiencies in their allegations identified by Kroger in its motion to dismiss. On May 18, 2022, Avigne and Morgan filed the putative class action against Kroger. They allege that they were misled by the packaging of Kroger's Private Selection smoked gouda sliced cheese. On Dec. 16, 2022, Kroger filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It agues, among other things, that (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state viable claims under the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and (2) the Plaintiffs' fraud claims are not pleaded with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Without expressing any view regarding the merits of the motion to dismiss, Judge Leitman grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint in order to remedy the alleged deficiencies in their allegations identified by Kroger in the motion to dismiss. He does not anticipate allowing the Plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that they could now include in their First Amended Complaint. Simply put, this is their opportunity to amend their allegations to cure the alleged deficiencies in their claims. By Jan. 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs will file a notice on the docket in the action notifying the Court and Kroger whether they will amend the Complaint. If they provide notice that they will be filing a First Amended Complaint, they will file that amended pleading by no later than Jan. 24, 2023. If they provide notice that they will not be filing a First Amended Complaint, they will respond to the motion to dismiss by no later than Jan. 24, 2023. Finally, if the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will be filing a First Amended Complaint, Judge Leitman will terminate without prejudice Kroger's currently-pending motion to dismiss as moot. Kroger may re-file a motion to dismiss directed at the First Amended Complaint if it believes that such a motion is appropriate after reviewing that pleading. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3awarcuw from Leagle.com. LANSING TRADE: Budicak Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Budicak, Inc. v. Lansing Trade Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02449 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order that the following pending motions are denied without prejudice as moot: -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; -- Lansing's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Craig Pirrong; -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Serve Rebuttal Expert Disclosures; -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Terrence Hendershott; -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Lehn, Doc; and -- Lansing's Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange involving Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation. Lansing Trade was an independently owned physical trading companies in North America, dealing in grain and energy products, at one point approaching $10 billion in annual revenue. On January 2, 2019, The Andersons announced that it had completed its acquisition of LTG.[CC] LENOVO INC: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert. Granted in Axelrod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N. D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting third stipulation to extend class certification deadlines. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be July 19, 2023. The Plaintiffs' deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be September 6, 2023. The Defendant's deadline to file opposition to motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be November 1, 2023. The Defendant's deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be December 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply re motion for class certification shall be January 17, 12 2024. The hearing on the motion for class certification shall be on February 23, 2024 9:00 a.m. or on a later date set by the Court The Court reminds the parties that it holds its civil law and motion calendar on Fridays. Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YSjQ2Q at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ahmed 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUSUF AHMED, et al., v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-30056-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), on behalf of: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Liberty Mutual 401(k) Plan from April 10, 2014 through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants." The Plaintiffs also move for certification of the following subclass: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Liberty Mutual 401(k) Plan who utilized the Plan's managed account services from April 10, 2014 through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants." The Plaintiffs move that the Court appoint each of the six Named Plaintiffs -- Yusuf Ahmed, Mary Ann Stocum, Andrew Loring, Mark Severn, Edward Lief, and Scott Diehl -- as representatives of the Class, and appoint Plaintiffs Diehl, Lief, Loring, and Severn as representatives of the Subclass. The Plaintiffs further move that the Court appoint their attorneys -- Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP—as Class Counsel for the Class and Subclass under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Liberty Mutual Group is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WmRrAd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO, 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com aschlichter@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com jrohlf@uselaws.com - and - Robert T. Naumes, Esq. Christopher Naumes, Esq. NAUMES LAW GROUP 2 Granite Ave, No. 425 Milton, Massachusetts 02186 Telephone: (617)-227-8444 Facsimile: (617) 696-2437 E-mail: robert@naumeslaw.com christopher@naumeslaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ahmed Suit Seeks to Impound Confidential Materials ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUSUF AHMED, et al., v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-30056-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs submit a motion to Impound Confidential Materials to provisionally seal Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Joel D. Rohlf in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, so that Defendants can seek to support their impoundment request. In accordance with the Court's Standing Order, the Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to a Confidentiality Agreement in this matter. The Defendants have designated Exhibit 2 as Confidential under the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement. In accordance with Local Rule 7.1, the parties conferred and Defendants requested that Exhibit 2 be sealed. Thus, the Confidentiality Agreement requires Plaintiffs to impound Exhibit 2 so that Defendants can attempt to show good cause for denying public access to this document. Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HYCMqz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO, 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com aschlichter@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com jrohlf@uselaws.com - and - Robert T. Naumes, Esq. Christopher Naumes, Esq. NAUMES LAW GROUP 2 Granite Ave, #425 Milton, MA 02186 Telephone: (617)-227-8444 Facsimile: (617) 696-2437 E-mail: robert@naumeslaw.com christopher@naumeslaw.com LONKERO LLC: Faces Zachmann Suit Over Beverage Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ZACHMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LONKERO, LLC d/b/a THE LONG DRINK COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-10701 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of consumers of Defendant's The Finnish Long Drink alcoholic beverages who have been led to believe that they are manufactured in and imported from Finland. The Finnish Long Drink alcoholic beverages come in four flavors: 1) traditional; 2) strong; 3) cranberry; and 4) zero. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant's marketing and sale of its Products misleads consumers to believe the alcoholic beverages are imported from Finland by using: -- (1) the name of the product itself – The Finnish Long Drink; and -- (2) additional misleading statements on its packaging and in advertising. The Consumers interpret these representations to mean that the Products are manufactured in and imported from Finland. Unfortunately, the Products are not from Finland but are actually from New York. The Defendant allegedly neglects to include any statements on its outside packaging of the true origin of its products. The only reference to the Products' origin is in small nondescript text on the side of the cans contained within the sealed packaging. By labeling the Products with these representations, Defendant creates consumer deception and confusion. A reasonable consumer purchases the products believing they are made in Finland, says the suit. Further, on the packaging, Defendant uses phrases such as "LEGENDARY TASTE FROM FINLAND", "now available in America" and "Now this legendary taste has finally been brought to America by the next generation of Finns who want the world to experience the refreshing and unique Finnish Long Drink." Each of these phrases further leads a consumer who views them to believe that the Products are from Finland. The Defendant has also disseminated video advertisements which are similarly misleading. The advertisements use the slogan "From the HAPPIEST COUNTRY ON EARTH Now available in America" leading consumers to believe that the Products are actually from Finland, alleges the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant allegedly violated New York General Business Law section 349 by misrepresenting the country of origin of the Products. Defendant also violated the New York False Advertising Law by misrepresenting, omitting, concealing, or failing to disclose material facts on the labels, packaging, marketing, and advertising of the Products with intent to mislead and deceive Class members. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products several times during the Class Period for personal and household consumption. Lonkero LLC manufactures, distributes and sells long drink alcoholic beverages throughout the country, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com cmoore@reesellp.com LYFT INC: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Lowell Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET LOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and WESTCHESTER DISABLED ON THE MOVE, INC., v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order recommending that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part: Judge recommends to certify three proposed classes: "All residents of or visitors to any and all regions serviced by Lyft, aside from Lyft's Access Regions or NYC, who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the Non-Access Region Class) (represented by Lowell and WDOMI and asserting claims under the ADA);" "All residents of or visitors to any and all regions serviced by Lyft in New York State aside from NYC who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the New York State Other Than NYC Class) (represented by Lowell and WDOMI and asserting claims under the ADA and NYSHRL);" and All residents of or visitors to Westchester County who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the Westchester Class) (represented by Lowell and WDOMI and asserting claims under the ADA and NYSHRL)." Excluded from the classes are people who (1) have downloaded the Lyft app; (2) have brought separate litigation against Lyft for its failure to serve people with disabilities; and/or (3) are residents of Ohio State University or the University of Texas at Austin who do not leave those campuses. In sum, the Plaintiffs have carried their burden with respect to all four requirements of Rule 23(a) and the ascertainability requirement. The Plaintiffs assert claims of disability discrimination based on the alleged failure of Lyft to provide wheelchair accessible vehicle ("WAV") services. The Plaintiff Harriet Lowell resides in White Plains, New York and typically uses a motorized scooter to travel. Lyft is a ridesharing transportation company that offers services through a ride-hailing application. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3POsyuZ at no extra charge.[CC] MATTEL INC: Discloses Video Viewing Info to Facebook, Carroll Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTEL INC., AMERICAN GIRL BRANDS LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-08954 (N.D. Cal., December 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have secretly reported to Facebook all key data regarding the viewing habits of visitors on the website, Americangirl.com. When a visitor watches a video on the website while logged into Facebook, the Defendants transmit the visitor's identifying information and video viewing habits to Facebook without consent. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, Facebook can bombard the website's visitors with more ads about the Defendants' products, the suit alleges. Mattel Inc. is a toy company headquartered in El Segundo, California. American Girl Brands LLC is a manufacturer of accessories products headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com MDL 2918: Defendants Seek to File Confidential Material Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants submit an administrative motion to seal pursuant to local rule 79-5(c): -- The materials sought to be sealed are portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Reseller the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and accompanying materials. -- These materials were designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only." A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WGS87b at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark. H. Hamer, Esq. Mark G. Weiss, Esq. Catherine Y. Stillman, Esq. BAKER McKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 452-7000 Facsimile: (202) 416-7177 E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com catherine.stillman@bakermckenzie.com - and - Craig Y. Lee, Esq. Carter C. Simpson, Esq. Christopher J. Dufek, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 955-1500 E-mail: craiglee@huntonak.com csimpson@huntonak.com cdufek@huntonak.com - and - J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq. Michelle Park Chiu, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com MIAMI, FL: Fox One Sues Over Overcharging of Building Permit ------------------------------------------------------------ Fox One LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated persons v. CITY OF MIAMI, Case No. 161391896 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought seeking damages and to enjoin the City from continuous overcharging of building permit and inspection fees in violation of Florida law. To date, the City has stockpiled more than $76 million in fees it is statutorily required to refund to feepayers. Building permit and inspection fees are prohibited from exceeding the costs of enforcing the Florida Building Code, yet the City has turned these fees into a hidden profit reservoir. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated feepayers to put a stop to the City's overcharging practices and to require the City to refund the surpluses it is maintaining in violation of Florida law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. City of Miami, Florida, is a Florida municipal corporation located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. Benjamin Weinberg, Esq. LEON COSGROVE JIMENEZ, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1975 Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com bweinberg@leoncosgrove.com anoonan@leoncosgrove.com eperez@leoncosgrove.com - and - Alexander F. Fox, Esq. ALEXANDER F. FOX, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 448-1033 Email: Alexfox@alexanderfoxlaw.com - and - Simon Ferro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRO LAW FIRM, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 984-8892 Email: simon@theferrofirm.com MIGNON FAGET: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Dicks Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victoria Dicks, et al., v. Mignon Faget, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-08063-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join January 20, 2023 additional parties shall be filed no later than: -- Initial disclosures pursuant January 4, 2023 to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than: -- All fact discovery is to be May 1, 2023 completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production Jan. 23, 2023 of documents shall be served by: -- Depositions shall be completed May 1, 2023 by: -- Requests to Admit shall be May 15, 2023 served no later than: -- All discovery shall be completed June 14, 2023 no later than: -- A post-discovery status June 21, 2023 conference shall be held on: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VjSXBV at no extra charge.[CC] NIO INC: Mundy, et al., File Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tan v. NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01424-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Mark Mundy and named plaintiff Eva Huang ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Class and Subclass; 2. appointing Mark Mundy and Eva Huang as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel. Nio is a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Shanghai, specializing in designing and developing electric vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hYh6QK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Yu Shi, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com yshi@rosenlegal.com NOREE THAI: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, Suy Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO IGNACIO SUY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NOREE THAI BAZAAR INC. (D/B/A NOREE THAI BAZAAR), ANDY CHAN LAU and GARY SHUITING CHEUNG A.K.A CHA, Case No. 1:22-cv-10684 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and OT wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Suy worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without an appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Mr. Suy appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants also failed to pay Mr. Suy the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Mr. Suy as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality, his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing non-tipped duties, including preparing food and cooking, the suit says. Mr. Suy was employed by Defendants at Noree Thai Bazaar from February 2019 until April 3, 2022. Noree Thai is an Authentic Thai restaurant with an extensive Thai street food menu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 OREGON: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Due Feb. 24 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrill v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00588 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Feb. 24, 2023 Certification is due by: -- The Defendants' Opposition to March 31, 2023 Motion for Class Certification is due by: -- Plaintiffs' Reply in support of March 21, 2023 Motion for Class Certification is due by: The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[CC] OUR DREAM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response in Powell ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL POWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OUR DREAM PIZZA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02542-TMC (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, for Approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contract information. The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional Certification on December 14, 2022. A response to the same from the Defendant is currently due by December 28, 2022. Despite working diligently to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, scheduling and travel issues relating to the holidays have led Defendant to request additional time to respond. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WGrwDp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Hannah D. Stetson, Esq. Reginald W. Belcher, Esq. TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA 1901 Main Street, 17th Floor (29201) Post Office Box 1473 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 227-4240 Facsimile: (803) 400-1539 E-mail: hstetson@turnerpadget.com PAPA JOHNS: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Thomas Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DACIA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAPA JOHNS INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A PAPA JOHNS, Case No. 3:22-cv-02012-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendant wiretaps the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com. The Plaintiff contends that Papa Johns procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on Papa Johns' website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the Papa Johns website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time. Papa Johns' procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Papa Johns' website for the entire duration of their website interaction, the lawsuit claims. Papa Johns' conduct violates the Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code section 630 et seq., the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S. C. section 2510, et seq., and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, and at all times relevant to this action, resided and was domiciled in San Diego County, California. Papa Johns operates the website www.papajohns.com. Papa Johns is an online and brick-and-mortar retailer for pizza and other food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Stephen B. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Thomas M. Beh, Esq. THE MURRAY LAW FIRM 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Telecopier: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com PERGOLA 36: Amended CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Smith Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA SMITH and CAMERON NILES, v. PERGOLA 36 LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04052-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an amended case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery is to be March 23, 2023 completed no later than: -- Depositions shall be completed March 10, 2023 by: -- All expert discovery, including April 21, 2023 disclosures, reports, rebuttal reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions shall be completed by: -- A post-discovery status April 27, 2023 conference shall be held on: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VlbI86 at no extra charge.[CC] PILLPACK LLC: Williams Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PILLPACK LLC,Case No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), the Court certifies the following class: "All persons or entities within the United States who between March 13, 2018, and June 16, 2019, received a non‐emergency telephone call promoting goods and services on behalf of PillPack, LLC as part of the PillPack Performance Media campaign: -- to a cellular telephone number through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; and -- Performance Media or its agents live transferred the call to a PillPack call center on the DNIS 866‐298‐ 0058; and -- Performance Media or its agents did not obtain the cellular telephone number through Rewardzoneusa.com, Nationalconsumercenter.com, finddreamjobs.com, instantplaysweepstakes.com, startacareertoday.com, samplesandsavings.com, sweepstakesaday.com, Surveyvoices.com, or Financedoneright.com between June 19, 2017, and May 3, 2019, before the date(s) of the call(s). 2. The Plaintiff Aaron Williams is appointed as Class Representative. 3. Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Smith & Dietrich Law Offices PLLC, and 4. Paronich Law PC are APPOINTED as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Finally, the Court does not find the proposed class, pending the Court's modification, to be overbroad. The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a court to certify a class that "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members." What ultimately matters is whether the Court has determined common questions predominate over individual ones. To the extent the Court determines in the future the class contains parties who are not able to recover on the merits, the Court may further refine the proposed class. PillPack is a full-service online pharmacy. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jvnsrc at no extra charge.[CC] PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Court Modifies Class Definition in Jordan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JORDAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PREFERRED FINANCIAL CORPORATION, LLC, and GREG E. LINDBERG, Case No. 1:21-cv-00914-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motions for class certification with modifications to the class definition. 1. The following class is certified: "All persons or entities who (a) at any point after June 27, 2019, through the present, (b) had a contract with Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC, related to Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company policies, (c) earned commissions for the issuance, selling, or servicing of CBL policies, (d) but have not been paid those commissions on behalf of themselves and the agents acting on their behalf in breach of their contracts with Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC;" 2. The following named plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives: James Jordan; CBS Insurance, Inc.; Employers First Choice Insurance Services Inc.; James Helbig; Bret Fields; Target, Inc.; Lenny Miller; Chris Benkendorf; National Benefits Group Midwest LLC; Michael Tolomei; Thomas Fletcher; Certified Financial Services Inc.; America's Health Care / RX Plan Agency, Inc.; Michael Nordquist; Consolidated Financial Group, LLC; Benefits for America Insurance Services, Inc.; and Plan America Financial Services, Inc. 3. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Maginnis Howard, PLLC, specifically Matthew E. Lee, Mark. R. Sigmon, Jeremy R. Williams, Jacob M. Morse, Edward H. Maginnis, and Karl S. Gwaltney are appointed as class counsel. 4. The plaintiffs shall prepare a proposed class notice and share it with counsel for the defendants no later than January 3, 2023. The parties shall meet and confer and shall file a joint submission on class notice no later than January 13, 2023; the joint notice shall contain an agreed-upon proposed notice and brief in support or dueling proposed notices and briefs if the parties do not agree. The Court said,"The plaintiffs have affirmatively met the requirements of Rule 23. The proposed class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, and adequacy of representation requirements, common questions predominate, and class-wide adjudication is the superior method to adjudicate these claims." The plaintiffs are insurance agents and agencies who allege they have contracts with the defendant Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC, under which Preferred pays them commissions for insurance policies sold to the policyholders by the agents and issued by Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company (CBL). They allege that Preferred stopped paying these commissions when CBL was placed into rehabilitation and is liable to them for breach of contract. They also contend that the defendant Greg Lindberg is responsible for Preferred's breach of contract under a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory. Preferred Financial provides mortgages, real estate and insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FPLBQP at no extra charge.[CC] PRETTY WOMEN: Scheduling Order Entered in Turner Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIERRA TURNER, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. PRETTY WOMEN, INC. d/b/a BEACH GIRLS, J.P. PARKING, INC., JAMES PETRY and KENT O'CONNELL, Case No. 4:22-cv-00085-JEG-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen B. Jackson, Jr. entered an scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions to add parties must be January 27, 2023 filed by: 2. Motions for leave to amend April 28, 2023 pleadings must be filed by: 3. The Plaintiff must designate July 25, 2023 expert witnesses related to Rule 23 class certification and/or a motion to decertify a conditionally certified collective action and disclose their written reports by: 4. The Defendants must designate August 8, 2023. expert witnesses related to Rule 23 class certification and/or a motion to decertify a conditionally certified collective action and disclose their written reports by: 5. The Plaintiff must designate August 15, 2023. rebuttal expert witnesses related to Rule 23 class certification and/or a motion to decertify a conditionally certified collective action and disclose their written reports by: 6. Discovery related to class/ September 22, 2023 collective action certification must be completed by: 7. Plaintiff's deadline to file October 20, 2023 a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be no later than: 8. The Defendants' deadline to file October 20, 2023 a motion to decertify a conditionally certified collective action shall be no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQA63L at no extra charge.[CC] PROMETAL CONSTRUCTION: Final Nod of Class Deal in Isufi Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DURIM ISUFI, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. ProMETAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant-Appellant, STV CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant, RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. [And a Third-Party Action], Index Nos. 653265/12, 595237/15, Appeal No. 16935, Case No. 2022-00761 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously affirms, with costs, the Jan. 25, 2022 order of Judge Debra James of the Supreme Court, New York County, which: a. granted the Plaintiffs' motion for full and final approval of the class action Settlement Agreement and Release dated November 2019; and b. awarded the class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $990,000. Contrary to Pro-Metal's contention, the Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court ensured that the settlement approval process was fair and did not abuse its discretion in granting final approval of the settlement. Pro-Metal's contention that the court simply adopted the mediator's conclusions without conducting its own fairness determination or considering Pro-Metal's objections is unsupported. Furthermore, the participation of a neutral mediator in the parties' negotiations supports a finding that the negotiations were conducted fairly and at arm's length. As to Pro-Metal's contention that it had not been afforded an opportunity to conduct sufficient meaningful discovery, it may not use this appeal from final approval of the settlement to relitigate the motion court's prior discovery rulings, which Pro-Metal did not appeal. The Appellate Division declines to consider Pro-Metal's challenge to the class counsel's fee award, as it is raised for the first time on appeal. It has considered Pro-Metal's remaining arguments and finds them unavailing. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5k27teud from Leagle.com. Venable LLP, New York (Brian G. Lustbader -- BGLustbader@Venable.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna Lusher -- llusher@vandallp.com -- of counsel), for Durim Isufi and Enver Kllogjeri, Respondents. Torre, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho (Mark S. Gamell of counsel), for RLI Insurance Company, Respondent. REALPAGE INC: Carter Suit Sues Over Trade Restraint Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; KNIGHTVEST RESIDENTIAL; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; DAYRISE RESIDENTIAL, LLC; KAIROI MANAGEMENT, LLC; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC; and CONTI CAPITAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-01332 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendants and their co-conspirators entered and engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 15.05 of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983. Accordingly, RealPage and the property managers who use its revenue management services constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through coordinated price setting. 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, the Plaintiff claims. 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] 3-7%" - was the means by which to do it. The contract, combination or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the rents they charge for residential units in and around the three relevant Texas markets: Austin, Dallas, and Houston, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff further contends that Defendants' conspiracy avoids a race to the bottom, but it does so at the financial expense of their customers - the renters. It allows property managers to hike rents at a faster pace when demand is strong without needing to lower them when it is weak. It eases natural competitive constraints and causes renters to spend higher and higher portions of their incomes on housing. The Plaintiff seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as appropriate, based on Defendants' violations of federal antitrust laws. Ms. Carter is a citizen and resident of the State of Texas. She rented a residential unit in a property managed by Lessor Defendant Cortland named The Boulevard at Deer Park in Deer Park, Texas, beginning in 2021. Realpage provides software and services to managers of residential rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Dingman, Esq. David R. Scott, Esq. Amanda Lawrence, Esq. Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. G. Dustin Foster, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 3445 Executive Center Drive, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 337-8430 Facsimile: (512) 727-3432 E-mail: kdingman@scott-scott.com 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 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com rgupta@lowey.com REALPAGE INC: Vincin Suit Sues Over Trade Restraint Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- Selena Vincin, Laura Boelens, Phillip Mackie, and Anna Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; KNIGHTVEST RESIDENTIAL; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; DAYRISE RESIDENTIAL, LLC; KAIROI MANAGEMENT, LLC; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC; and CONTI CAPITAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-01329 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendants and their co-conspirators entered and engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 15.05 of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983. Accordingly, RealPage and the property managers who use its revenue management services constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through coordinated price setting. 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, the Plaintiff claims. 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] 3-7%" - was the means by which to do it, the Plaintiff adds. The contract, combination or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the rents they charge for residential units in and around the three relevant Texas markets: Austin, Dallas, and Houston, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' conspiracy avoids a race to the bottom, but it does so at the financial expense of their customers - the renters. It allows property managers to hike rents at a faster pace when demand is strong without needing to lower them when it is weak. It eases natural competitive constraints and causes renters to spend higher and higher portions of their incomes on housing. The Plaintiff seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as appropriate, based on Defendants' violations of federal antitrust laws. Ms. Vincin is a citizen and resident of the State of Texas. Ms. Vincin rented residential units in properties, including Creekside Village Apartments in Plano, Texas, that were managed by Lessor Defendant Conti at various times between in 2015 through 2020. Realpage provides software and services to managers of residential rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management software.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Dingman, Esq. David R. Scott, Esq. Amanda Lawrence, Esq. Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. G. Dustin Foster, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 3445 Executive Center Drive, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 337-8430 Facsimile: (512) 727-3432 E-mail: kdingman@scott-scott.com 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 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com rgupta@lowey.com RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAMARIA LYNN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RIBBON HOME, INC. f/k/a, ACHIEVE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02873-JLB-JSS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff's employment with Defendant began on April 11, 2022 as a transaction coordinator, and was terminated as part of a "mass layoff" as defined by the WARN Act. Accordingly, Defendant failed to provide their full-time employees and part-time employees with the sixty-day notice required under the WARN Act prior to terminating more than 100 of those workers on November 21, 2022. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday or vacation pay which would have accrued for 60 days following their respective termination without notice and failure to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident of Pasco County, Florida and was employed by Defendant until her termination without cause on November 21, 2022. Ribbon Home is a real estate platform that allows users to sell and purchase products by sharing a unique showcase link.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Woodside, Esq. Woodside Law, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 606-4872 Facsimile: (813) 333-984 E-mail: Jason@woodsidelawpa.com RISE SERVICES: Anthony Seeks Rule 23 Class Action Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Rise Services Inc. dba Rise Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Rise, Inc., a Utah non-profit corporation dba Rise Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting his motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), on behalf of: "All current and former Rise Services employees who worked as Direct Support Professionals in Arizona from February 18, 2019 to the date Notice is distributed (the "Class Members");" 2. appointing him as Class representative and appointing Yen Pilch Robaina Kresin PLC as Class Counsel; and 3. granting such other and further equitable and just relief. This case involves a group of DSPs who were employed throughout Arizona in Rise's facilities (including group homes, day care facilities, and in-home training) and were responsible for providing care giving services to Rise's members, who consist of disabled individuals. Despite the importance of the work that the DSPs provided for the Rise members, the Company failed to properly compensate the DSPs. The DSPs were routinely required to work hours off the clock, resulting in not being paid for hours at their regular hourly rate or overtime rates for hours over forty, and in some cases, when all the hours worked were considered, the DSPs were not even paid the minimum wage. Further, Rise routinely failed to pay the DSPs hazard pay, bonuses, and holiday pay they were entitled to according to Rise's own policies. Rise's uniform practice of wage violations has been especially prevalent during the COVID pandemic when DSPs were required to work even 19 more hours to cover shifts and care for members who tested positive for COVID. Mr. Anthony seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Rise Services operates numerous caregiving facilities throughout Arizona. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C06TKB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC 6017 N. 15th Street Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 682-6450 E-mail: TDF@yprklaw.com PNS@yprklaw.com RYAN R. GILBERTSON: O&D and Gilbertson Settlements Get Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON D. GRUBER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RYAN R. GILBERTSON ET AL., Case No. 1:16-cv-09727-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order directing that the judgment against Reger be offset for both Gilbertson's 50% share of responsibility and the amount of the O&D settlement. The claims administrator should calculate class members' damages and evaluate claims against Reger in accordance with this Opinion. The Court grants final approval to both the O&D and Gilbertson settlements, and also grants Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of 1/3 the D&O settlement as fees, and for reimbursement of $1,062,373.62 in out-of-pocket costs and expenses. In evaluating this request, the Court considers "(1) the time and labor expended by counsel; (2) the magnitude and complexities of the litigation; (3) the risk of the litigation; (4) the quality of representation; (5) the requested fee in relation to the settlement; and (6) public policy considerations." Each factor supports plaintiffs' counsel's application. The Plaintiffs' counsel calculate that they spent 23,079.53 hours prosecuting this action from February 2017 through reaching the D&O settlement on May 31, 2022, an amount of time that is not unreasonable given the need for initial investigations, extensive fact and expert discovery, and extensive pretrial motion practice, including motions to dismiss, class certification, Daubert, and summary judgment briefing. Plaintiffs' counsel made this very significant investment of time and resources notwithstanding uncertainty to plead claims for relief under the PSLRA, to establish liability, obtain and maintain class certification, prove loss causation, and prove damages. The defendants vigorously contested the claims of the class at every stage of the litigation, and plaintiffs' counsel assumed the risk of this litigation working on a fully contingent basis. The quality of plaintiffs' counsel is demonstrated not just by the absence of any class members' objections to their award, and this Court's own observations, but also by the objective result, which involved achieving a settlement representing 93% of the O&D defendants' remaining insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GhhZ0r at no extra charge.[CC] SABROSAS EMPANADAS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Rodriguez --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, et al., v. Sabrosas Empanadas Corp. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-07876-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to January 10, 2023 Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than: -- All fact discovery is to be March 24, 2023 completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production January 18, 2023 of documents shall be served by: -- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule January 18, 2023 33.3(a) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York shall be served by: -- Depositions shall be completed by March 24, 2023 -- Requests to Admit shall be served January 18, 2023 no later than: -- All discovery shall be completed April 28, 2023 no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhlBsU at no extra charge.[CC] SCISSORTAIL ENERGY: Dinsmore Estate Seeks Interest on Late Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as Administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Scissortail Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00352-GLJ (E.D. Okla., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class action concerning Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to the payment of oil-and-gas production proceeds in violation of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The PRSA requires holders of proceeds, like Defendant, to pay interest on "proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production or some portion of such proceeds [that] are not paid prior to the end of the applicable time periods provided" by statute. According to the complaint, the Defendant knows it is bound by statute to pay interest on late payments, but it has consistently ignored these obligations and blatantly violated Oklahoma law. The Defendant does not automatically pay interest on all late payments, instead, upon information and belief, it only pays interest to owners who demand it. For these reasons, Plaintiffs file this class action against Defendant to obtain relief for themselves and all similarly situated owners who received late payments for which Defendant did not pay interest as required by the PRSA, says the suit. Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III were appointed as Administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore on September 17, 2021. The Estate owns interests in Oklahoma oil-and-gas properties for which Defendant purchased production and owed a duty under Oklahoma law to remit payment to the Estate. Scissortail Energy, LLC constructs, owns, and operates natural gas and energy pipelines in central and eastern Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - James U. White, Jr., Esq. JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC. P.O. Box 54783 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Rosa Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- STEVEN ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION, ALAN J. LANE, and ANTONIO MARTINO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01936-CAB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Silvergate securities between November 9, 2021 and November 17, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's platform lacked sufficient controls and procedures to detect instances of money laundering; (2) that Silvergate's customers had engaged in money laundering in amounts exceeding $425 million; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to receive regulatory scrutiny and face damages, including penalties and reputational harm; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. The price of the Company's securities significantly declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information alleged herein to have been concealed from the market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors' losses, the suit claims. Silvergate is a digital currency company. Its platform, the Silvergate Exchange Network, provides payments, lending, and funding solutions for an expanding class of digital currency companies and investors. Silvergate is also the parent company of Silvergate Bank which provides financial services that include commercial banking, commercial and residential real estate lending, mortgage warehouse lending, and commercial business lending.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 SPECTRANETICS CORP: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION D.B.A. SPNC, INC.; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal.), he Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. finally approving the Second Amended Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims agreed to by Plaintiff and Defendant The Spectranetics Corporation D.B.A. SPNC, Inc.; 2. confirming the certification of the Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23"); 3. confirming the appointment of David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter L. Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; 4. confirming the appointment of Plaintiff as class representative; and 5. granting final approval to an allocation of $10,000.00 for claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698, et seq. ("PAGA Payment"), of which $7,500.00 will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development agency ("LWDA") and $2,500.00 of which will be included within the Net Settlement Amount to be made available for distribution to Settlement Class Members; and 6. directing that [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Final Judgment submitted herewith be entered as called for under the Settlement. The "Settlement Class" consists of all persons employed by Defendant in California as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class Period. The "Settlement Class Period" is from April 20, 2014 through August 17, 2022. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes its technology for interventional cardiovascular therapy. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YKKbQr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maya Cheaitani, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bl, PMB 42554 West Hollywood CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 725-9094 Facsimile: (213) 634-2485 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com maya@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 4276 Katella Ave, Suite 301 Los Alamitos CA 90720 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Cummings Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated investors v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J. RIGA, FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, and NORA E. BRENNAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock during the period December 6, 2021 through September 22, 2022, inclusive, who were damaged by the false or misleading representations made by the Defendants in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5. Before the Class Period, Defendants were conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called ZENITH20. Less than a month after the start of the Class Period, on January 3, 2022, Spectrum entered into a privately negotiated securities purchase agreement with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. which agreed to purchase 12.5 million shares of Spectrum common stock at $1.60 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $20,000,000. Starting on September 20, 2022, before the market opened, investors began to learn the truth when the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee released a briefing document in anticipation of its September 22, 2022 meeting with Defendants to review poziotinib. Investors were surprised when, despite the Company's repeated representations during the Class Period that the data for ZENITH20 were positive, the ODAC briefing document disclosed not only negative data on the safety and efficacy of pozi, but also a failure by the Company to enroll any patients in the required phase 3 confirmatory trial, the suit says. As a result of this news, shares of Spectrum common stock declined from a closing price of $1.06 per share on September 19, 2022, to a close at $0.66 per share on September 20, 2022, a decline of $0.40 per share, or over 37% on heavier than usual volume. As of December 5, 2022, Spectrum stock has not recovered, closing at $0.47 per share. Spectrum purports to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted oncology therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com SPOKEO INC: More Time to File for Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, JASON FRY, and NICHOLAS NEWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending deadline for filing their class certification motion by 30 days, from January 11, 2023, to February 10, 2023. The Plaintiffs request a 30-day extension to file their class certification motion. This will allow time for them to receive the responses to their second set of Interrogatories served on December 20, 2022. These responses may provide clarity about the identification of class members. The Plaintiffs have shown good cause for this modest extension and Spokeo has articulated no prejudice. Plaintiffs' discovery has focused on identifying what information and data Spokeo maintains about the users of its website, its subscribers, and the people whose information appear in the teaser profiles. Spokeo is in the business of selling personal information without permission. Spokeo uses Plaintiffs' names, personal information, and personas in advertisements promoting monthly subscriptions to Spokeo.com. California, Ohio, and Indiana law recognize the rights of individuals to control the commercial use of their names and personas, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gfzmyy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Brittany Resch, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen St. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Gullet Notice of Settlement Stayed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GULLETT, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01571-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order that the Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement is stayed until final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP. The Court further ordered that counsel shall file within 10 days from the date of final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case 4:19-cv-02590-CDP, a stipulation for dismissal, a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent judgment. Failure to timely comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VfHAuM at no extra charge.[CC] STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Litman Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carole Litman, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 22AC-AC00642 was removed from the Circuit Court for Cole County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 1, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04178-NKL. The suit alleges individual and putative class counts for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff contends that State Auto allegedly violates the terms its property insurance policies by allegedly depreciating labor costs when adjusting property damage claims. The Plaintiff seeks alleged compensatory damages and declaratory and equitable relief.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Curtis E. Woods, Esq. Betsey L. Lasister, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 460-2400 Email: curtis.woods@dentons.com betsey.lasister@dentons.com - and - Mark L. Hanover, Esq. Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 876-8178 Email: mark.hanover@dentons.com kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com SUNPATH LTD: Court Strikes Smith Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH SMITH v. SUNPATH, LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs motion for class certification. The Court said, "This order is without prejudice, and does not convey an opinion on the merits of any future attempts by the Plaintiff to certify a similar class in another civil action." SunPath offers consumers several levels of premium vehicle service contracts. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YI5sKF at no extra charge.[CC] SWEET EARTH: Order Modifying CMO Sought --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELA SOTO HURTADO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. SWEET EARTH, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-04894-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the November 3, 2021 Case Management Order (CMO) and granting an extension of the deadline and last day for Plaintiff to file Motion for Class Certification to December 13, 2023. On November 3, 2021, the first Case Management Conference was held in 11 this matter and the Court issued CMO. The CMO sets forth a number of dates and deadlines, including the Last Day to file Motion for Class Certification, August 19, 2022, and a Trial Date of June 3, 2024. The Court further Ordered the Parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and proposed order setting all deadlines not set by the Court, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines. The Parties were also ordered to reach an agreement on an ADR Process and to file a Joint ADR Plan. The Parties met and conferred and submitted a Stipulation Re: Discovery Cut-off Dates ("Discovery Stipulation") and a Stipulation Selecting ADR Process ("ADR Stipulation") as requested by the Court. On November 22, 2021, the Court signed the stipulated Order on the Parties' Discovery Stipulation. On November 29, 2021, the Court signed the stipulated Order re ADR, wherein the Parties agreed to meet and confer and select a mutually agreeable private mediator, a date for mediation, and to further update the Court about their plan for ADR. The Parties agreed to mediate with Jeff Krivis on August 31, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Motion for Class Certification Deadlines and informed the Court that the Parties had agreed to mediate on August 31, 2022. On June 16, 2022, the Court granted the Stipulation to Continue Motion for Class Certification Deadlines. The Court continued the deadline from August 19, 2022 to June 3, 2023. Sweet Earth was founded in 1978. The company's line of business includes manufacturing prepared foods and miscellaneous food specialties. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzOEbr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orlando Villalba, Esq. Helga Hakimi, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Telephone: (310) 712-8010 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com Helga.Hakimi@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq. Morgan P. Forsey, Esq. Brett D. Young, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com mforsey@sheppardmullin.com byoung@sheppardmullin.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03500-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff files a renewed motion for class certification requesting that the Court enter an order pursuant to the Court's Order dated November 23, 2022: 1. certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities in the United States and its territories and possessions, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who directly purchased branded or generic Colcrys tablets from Takeda, Prasco, or Par at any time from September 15, 2017 until December 1, 2020 (the "Class");" Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal governmental entities; 2. appointing Value Drug Company as the representative of the Class; and 3. appointing Bruce E. Gerstein of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP and Peter Kohn of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class. Takeda is a global, research and development-driven pharmaceutical company A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YFExPo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. Deborah Elman, Esq. David B. Rochelson, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com drochelson@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL LEGER LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph Lukens, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com bdemuth@faruqilaw.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Andrew W. Kelly, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com akelly@odrlaw.com - and - Russell Chorush, Esq. Christopher M. First, Esq. William B. Collier, Jr., Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com wcollier@hpcllp.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03500-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal Volume II of Plaintiff's Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff contends that the Volume II of the Appendix will be submitted on Dec. 22 to Chambers in accordance with section I.G. of the Court's February 2022 Policies and Procedures. A hard copy of the entire Appendix (Volumes I and II) will also be provided to Chambers. Plaintiff's Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification is divided into two volumes. Volume I (App. 1a-1796a) contains a Court-approved redacted version of the entire appendix from Plaintiff's prior class certification motion. By Orders dated September 20, 2022 (and October 31, 2022, the Court approved limited redactions to certain documents included in the three parts of the appendix from Plaintiff's prior class certification motion. Volume I also includes other materials (e.g., a transcript of a public hearing) not subject to the Parties' Protective Order Agreement, as well as expert reports that were previously filed publicly, with the same redactions (if any) to each report that were previously approved by the Court. Volume II of the Appendix (App. 1797a – 3847a) includes expert reports served by both Plaintiff and Defendants, which quote documents parties and non-parties have designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential under the Parties' Protective Order Agreement. These materials have not yet been filed with the Court, and so the Court has not yet determined which portions may be sealed. "The burden is on the party or parties seeking confidentiality to overcome the presumption of access by demonstrating that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of access." Takeda is a global, research and development-driven pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wt06Bh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. Deborah Elman, Esq. David B. Rochelson, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com drochelson@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL LEGER LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph Lukens, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com bdemuth@faruqilaw.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Andrew W. Kelly, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com akelly@odrlaw.com - and - Russell Chorush, Esq. Christopher M. First, Esq. William B. Collier, Jr., Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com wcollier@hpcllp.com TD BANK: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over OD & NSF Charges --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH A. HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. CACE-22-018542 (Fla. Cir., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that Defendants breach Defendant's contract, including Defendant's covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by making improper assessment and collection of $35 overdraft fees (OD Fees) and non-sufficient funds fees (NSF Fees) on transactions that did not actually overdraw the account. As an example of Defendant's breaches, on Friday, February 4, 2022, the Plaintiff received a deposit by wire transfer in the amount of $24,630.45 and five withdrawals totaling $231.50 posted to the account. That night, pursuant to Defendant's own Funds Availability Policy, Defendant should have processed the deposit by wire transfer first, made that deposit available for the day's withdrawals and then processed the withdrawals, the Plaintiff contends. Instead, Defendant purposefully processed the withdrawals first in order to assess Plaintiff two $35.00 OD Fees on Monday, February 7, 2022 and then made the deposit available. In sum, Defendant's own bank statements show that Defendant assessed Plaintiff $70.00 in OD Fees when Plaintiff had nearly $25,000.00 available in his account. Through these practices, Defendant has allegedly made substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to turn its customers' financial struggles into revenue. The damages in this case exceed $30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff resides in Miami-Dade County and has maintained a checking account with Defendant. TD Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd, 5th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615)254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfhirm.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave Cincinnati OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 540-3689 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com TEAM HEALTH: Overbills Payors Using Inflated CPT Codes, Risk Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RISK MANAGEMENT, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC, and HCFS HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00456 (E.D. Tenn., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover recoupment and disgorgement of overpayments by the Defendants using improperly chosen Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in conjunction with the billing. RMI and Class members rely on TeamHealth's representations in the form of the CPT code-based billing statements that the Defendants transmit across state lines by mail or wire and that the Defendants certify to be true, accurate and complete. In relying on the Defendants' false representations and accepting claims for payment to their detriment, payors pay higher amounts than are properly due, the Plaintiff claims. Risk Management, Inc. is an insurance agency, with its office address in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Team Health Holdings, Inc. is a healthcare company with its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. Ameriteam Services, LLC is a provider of administrative and support services, headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee. HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC is a medical billing service company in Charleston, West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Parker, Esq. PARKER & CROFFORD 5115 Maryland Way Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 244-2445 Facsimile: (615) 255-6037 E-mail: mparker@parker-crofford.com - and - Mona L. Wallace, Esq. John S. Hughes, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA 525 N. Main St. Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and - Janet Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK, PA 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com alemmon@milberg.com TEP ROCKY: Allowed Remote Testimony for Certain Fact Witnesses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLLEY POTTER RANCHES ENERGY CO. LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00495-DDD-GPG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order granting Tep Rocky Mountain LLC's unopposed motion to permit remote testimony for certain fact witnesses. The Court will permit Paul Benacquista, Bruce Chrisman, Tiffany Pollock, and Janice Wiseman to testify remotely by videoconference at the upcoming class certification hearing. TEP Rocky Mountain is a private exploration and production company that operates the piceance basin assets acquired by Terra Energy Partners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YNsEHm at no extra charge.[CC] TOTAL INSURANCE: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Malone Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MALONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS LLC, TOGETHERHEALTH INSURANCE, LLC, and BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02882-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated MNS employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a Medicare Sales Nesting employee (MNS) at the Defendants' office located in Lake Mary, Florida from April 2021 through April 2022. Total Insurance Brokers LLC is a health insurance agency, with its principal place of business located at 3450 Buschwood Park, Dr. Suite 200, Tampa, Florida. TogetherHealth Insurance, LLC is a provider of health insurance agency services based in Tampa, Florida. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is a health insurance technology company, with its principal place of business located at 3450 Buschwood Park, Dr. Suite 200, Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, PA 10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone No.: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile No.: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Bid to Junk Two Claims in Daniels Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL DANIELS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al.; v. TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS AND CARTAGE, LLC, et al.; Case No. 4:20-cv-00869-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order denying the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserting employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court said, "The Defendants argue Counts I and II must be dismissed as to certain Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Samuel Daniels (1) as untimely, and (2) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motion is fully briefed. After careful consideration, the motion to dismiss is denied." This case was filed as a putative class-action employment-discrimination case asserting claims, in relevant part, under Title II, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq. In September 2021 -- one month after having filed a first amended complaint with leave -- Plaintiffs Samuel Daniels and Leticia Anderson filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify a class as to the employment-discrimination claims. The Court denied class certification on May 5, 2022. The next month, on June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint to add as plaintiffs ten individuals who had been part of the putative class for these employment-discrimination claims. The motion was granted on August 8, 2022. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint was due August 10, 2022. However, the Plaintiffs did not timely file their second amended complaint pursuant to the Court's order. Instead, on September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the second amended complaint out of time pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Traditional Logistics provides management, IT system support, and loss prevention services for automotive manufacturers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PTFTC9 at no extra charge.[CC] TRAVEL INSURED: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadline Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS B. EDLESON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVEL INSURED INTERNATIONAL, INC., and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00323-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification from January 23, 2023, to February 22, 2023. On October 11, 2022, the Court granted the parties' prior motion to extend the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification to January 23, 2023, to accommodate the scheduling of the Defendants' corporate witnesses for depositions in November and December. One of those depositions was ultimately completed on December 19, 2022. Unfortunately, a second deposition, which was scheduled for December 21, had to be rescheduled due to the witness contracting the flu, which prevented the deposition from going forward. As a result, the deposition has been rescheduled for January 5, 2023, the first available date. In order to allow Plaintiff to take the remaining corporate representative deposition and to allow sufficient time for Plaintiff to incorporate the witness's testimony into the motion as well as Plaintiff's expert's report, the parties are jointly requesting that the Court continue the deadline for Plaintiff to file the motion for class certification by 30 days from January 23, 2023, to February 22, 2023. This request to modify the class certification schedule is the second such request to enlarge the Scheduling Order, is submitted in good faith, and is not interposed for delay or any other improper purpose. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WGT23D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC . 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 The Defendants are represented by: Steven B. Weisburd, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 530N Los Angeles, CA 90067-4707 Telephone: (310) 843-6300 E-mail: sweisburd@carltonfields.com - and - Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Michael N. Wolgin, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com mwolgin@carltonfields.com TRU KIDS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Toro Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE TORO, v. TRU KIDS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10718-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. This Order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5), including the requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. -- Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. Tru Kids Is an American retail and licensing company that operates the Toys "R" Us locations in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgYq9Z at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Washington Court Lifts Stay in Samson TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, lifts the stay the case, FRANTZ SAMSON, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00175 (W.D. Wash.). The matter is before the Court on the Parties' briefings as to whether or not to lift the current stay in the case. On Sept. 1, 2022, the Court asked the Parties to file briefs on the status of the case and inform the Court whether the stay in the case should be lifted or remain. The Defendant filed a brief in favor of keeping the stay in place, while the Plaintiff's brief requested the stay be lifted. Samson filed the suit against United in 2019 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b). He began receiving automated calls from United in 2018, asking him to call United regarding health insurance coverage. Samson never provided prior consent to receive these calls, but appears to have inherited a phone number of someone whom United previously called. He tried blocking the number, calling United and asking to be taken off the list, and even attempting to "opt out" of the calls, but nevertheless continued to receive calls. Samson brought this case as a class action on behalf of two classes: a "Wrong Number Class," consisting of individuals that United called but who were not United members at the time, and a "Do-Not-Call Class," comprising individuals that United called, but had flagged as "do not call" in its records. Shortly after Samson filed the Amended Complaint, United brought a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of three similar, consolidated cases in the Eastern District of California. The three cases are: Matlock v. United HealthCare Services, Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-02206 (E.D. Cal.); Humphrey v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14cv-01792 (E.D. Cal.); and Gonzalez v. Optum, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01129 (E.D. Cal.). All three cases are class actions involving automatic calls by United or its subsidiary to individuals who did not consent to receiving calls. The cases are currently stayed until the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") clarifies the definition of a "called party" under the TCPA. This case was first assigned to the Honorable Judge Robart who ruled on the motion to stay. Judge Robart granted the stay pending the resolution of the consolidated cases in July 2020. The case has since been reassigned to this Court. Given the time that has elapsed since Judge Robart granted the stay, Judge Pechman now considers whether a continued stay is appropriate or if it should be lifted. Samson, in his brief, identified three reasons the Court should lift the stay: (1) new case law has come out since the stay was imposed, which change the circumstances; (2) assuming the Court would allow Samson to file an amended class certification, the classes could be limited to avoid any duplication with the Matlock actions; and (3) the Eastern District of California is unlikely to resolve this issue any time soon. Judge Pechman finds these reasons persuasive. She finds that (i) the holding in ACA Int'l and the FCC's yet to be determined standard is not incompatible with lifting the stay; (ii) amending the classes further warrants lifting the stay; and (iii) it is unlikely that the Eastern District of California will be able to resolve the Matlock cases in a timely manner. Samson has demonstrated a change of circumstances that permit lifting the current stay. Judge Pechman therefore lifts the stay and gives Samson 30 days to amend his Motion for Class Certification. She does so without prejudice to United to bring a motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/566ed2h8 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Court OK's Schelske Bid for Preliminary Injunction ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00049-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction – all disciplinary and separation procedures against the plaintiffs must cease. The Court said, "The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But the law, including Fifth Circuit precedent, makes clear that these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs' religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden. It admitted no evidence at the hearing, and its assertion that allowing the ten named plaintiffs to remain exempt would prevent the Army from satisfying its mission defies logic and is undermined by the record." Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA). If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to "rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19" within 30 days of enactment. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, H.R. 7776, 117th Cong. section 525 (2022). Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I1blwq at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Lewis Class Suit Dismissed w/or Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EDWARD LEWIS, et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00642-SPC-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell entered an order that: 1. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to any individual plaintiff to filing his own complaint -- under a new case number -- and accompanied by the $402.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 2. The motion for class certification is denied. 3. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, terminate any additional pending motions as moot, and close this file. Mr. Lewis and five other inmates at the Coleman U.S. Penitentiary initiated this action by filing a purported class action civil rights complaint on behalf of themselves and 230 other inmates in the "E-Unit" and "F-Unit." The Complaint challenges the conditions of confinement in those units during a sewage leak. Mr. Lewis, who was the only Plaintiff to sign the Complaint, also moves for certification of a class action and for appointment of counsel. The Complaint is due to be dismissed. Plaintiffs are not permitted to join together in a single action to share a filing fee. In considering this issue, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that "the plain language of the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] requires that each prisoner proceeding IFP pay the full filing fee. No filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied the Complaint, but Lewis does appear to reference lack of financial resources in his request for class certification. Further, as pro se litigants, Plaintiffs cannot represent their fellow inmates in a class action, given that "it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action." Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot bring this, or any other action, on behalf of similarly situated individuals. As to the motion for appointment of counsel to represent the class, appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right, but rather is "a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner." The Complaint presents issues -- obvious conditions in the prison -- that are not novel or complex. There are no "exceptional circumstances" to warrant appointment of counsel in this case. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VspOVc at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Class Cert Proceeding Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense, et al., case no. 6:22-cv-00049-h (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order directing the Parties to confer and inform the Court how they propose to proceed by no later than Jan. 9, 2023 the pending motion to certify class and motion for class-wide preliminary injunction and legislative developments surroundings the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA), in light of the Court's Dec. 21, 2022 ruling. The Dec. 21, 2022 ruling issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. To the extent the parties disagree, the joint report should explain each side's proposal, the Court says. In particular, the defendants must state in the joint report whether they will request a stay of these proceedings, as the Department of Justice recently did in a similar case, the Court adds. Lastly, the Court reminds the parties of the order it issued at the preliminary injunction hearing requiring the defendants to give the Court at least seven days' notice before separating any soldier for violating the vaccine mandate. Lloyd James Austin III was sworn in as the 28th Secretary of Defense on January 22, 2021. Mr. Austin is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense and serves on the National Security Council. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wp7ehV at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blessinger, et al., v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 8:22-cv-01029 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an endorsed order granting the "Joint Motion to Extend Class Certification Briefing Deadlines." -- The Plaintiffs may file their motion for class certification on or before January 31, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Seeks Permission to File Information Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04494-GHW-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants move the Court for permission to file under seal: 1. certain confidential supervisory information (the "Confidential Supervisory Information") contained in the Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification ("Opposition"); and 2. certain exhibits to the Declaration of Leonid Traps in support of Defendants' Opposition, as well as descriptions of or references to those exhibits in the Opposition or in other supporting materials (the "Confidential Non-Regulatory Materials"). The Confidential Supervisory Information, which appears solely in footnote of Defendants' Opposition, is comprised of descriptions of documents that Plaintiffs previously filed under seal in connection with their motion for class certification. The Confidential Non-Regulatory Materials consist of documents produced by non-parties in this action, excerpts of deposition testimony of non-party witnesses in this action, and references to those documents in Defendants' Opposition and supporting materials. These materials have been designated as "Confidential" by the relevant non-parties. Pursuant to Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn,Individual Rule III(F), the Defendants have met and conferred in advance of this filing with Plaintiffs and the relevant producing parties, as applicable, to attempt to narrow the scope of the request, Defendants Counsel says. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California; operational headquarters in Manhattan; and managerial offices throughout the United States and internationally. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gi8uOg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Leonid Traps, Esq. SULLIVAN CROMWELL LLP WWW.SULLCROM.COM Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 WESTGATE PALACE: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Steines Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- WESTGATE PALACE, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Adam U. Steines, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Westgate Palace, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00629-RBD-DAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendants for violation of the Military Lending Act (MLA) and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the MLA by: (a) failing to determine whether the Plaintiffs were covered borrowers in connection to the financing they obtained from Westgate Palace to purchase a Time Share Accommodation at the Westgate Palace resort in Orlando, Florida; (b) failing to calculate an accurate interest rate pursuant to the MLA; (c) failing to disclose a Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) orally; (d) failing to provide MLA disclosures in a separate writing; and (e) requiring covered borrowers to agree to mandatory arbitration clauses. As a result of Westgate's numerous violations of the MLA, the agreements between Westgate and the Plaintiffs were void from their inception, making it inequitable for Westgate to retain the benefits it received based upon the void agreements, and requiring it to disgorge to the Plaintiffs all amounts they paid in connection with or pursuant to the illegal and void agreements, says the suit. On March 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 9, 2022. On Oct. 5, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to file excess pages. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to compel and motion to dismiss and granted motion for leave to file excess pages through an Order entered by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. The appellate case is captioned Adam U. Steines, et al. v. Westgate Palace, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-14211, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on December 20, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ADAM U. STEINES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. Kyle Woodford, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, PA 2132 Central St. Petersburg, FL 33712 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 - and - Roger Mandel, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, PC 2833 Crockett St., Ste. 135 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (214) 253-8300 - and - Matthew Peterson, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Erika Roxanne Willis, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 - and - Craig E. Rothburd, Esq. Dylan Jacob Thatcher, Esq. CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, PA 320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 700 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 251-8800 Defendants-Appellants WESTGATE PALACE, LLC, et al. are represented by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Richard Wayne Epstein, Esq. Shane McGlashen, Esq. John H. Pelzer, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP 200 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 (954) 527-2469 WHELAN EVENT: Gorman Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD GORMAN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHELAN EVENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02275-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. approving the Settlement Agreement between Named Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendant; 2. certifying the above-described Settlement Class for settlement purposes; and 3. requiring the Parties to comply with the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement or pursuant to the Court's Order granting Final Approval. On July 1, 2020, the Named Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit (the "FCRA Litigation") asserting claims against WESS under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of himself and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VqNPfc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Direct Dial: (813) 337-7992 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8719 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and- Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: craig@clalegal.com WHITEFISH, MT: Seeks to Vacate Current Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually; AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS, LLC; RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC; and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons or entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order vacating the current scheduling order and staying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Whitefish is a resort town in the Rocky Mountains of northwest Montana. It's a gateway to the jagged peaks, lakes and glacier-carved valleys of Glacier National Park. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hTeKCS at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff City of Whitefish Todd A. Hammer, Esq. Marcel A. Quinn, Esq. Thomas A. Hollo, Esq. HAMMER, QUINN & SHAW PLLC WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Kolka Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN KOLKA and MICHAEL JACOBS SR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WRIGHT & FILIPPIS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-12982-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. From January 26 to January 28, 2022, Defendant Wright & Filippis experienced a data breach whereby its internal systems were infiltrated by a ransomware attack. The Defendant did not detect this unauthorized access until May 2, 2022 -- almost five months later -- at which point unauthorized third-party hackers had already accessed and acquired the personal identifying information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of approximately 877,584 of its patients. As a result of Defendant's wrongful actions and inactions, Plaintiffs and Class Members have had their PII and PHI compromised and stolen by nefarious third-party hackers, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and have otherwise suffered damages. Plaintiff Shawn Kolka in particular has already experienced signs indicating that his personal information has been fraudulently used to open an unauthorized credit card account in his name, notes the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff and Class Members bring this action to seek redress against Defendant. The Plaintiffs are former patients who received healthcare services from the Defendant. Wright & Filippis, LLC is a HIPAA covered entity that provides prosthetics, orthotics, and accessibility solutions to patients throughout the state of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. ARONOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC 220 South Main Street, Suite 305 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 716-5421 Facsimile: (248) 419-1032 E-mail: edmund@aronowitzlawfirm.com WYNDHAM HOTELS: Cullum Must File Amended Complaint Within 60 Days ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SANDRA L. CULLUM; DEIRDRE SALEH, Plaintiffs v. WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS CORP.; WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS INC; GEOFFREY A. BALLOTTI; WYNDHAM HOTELS (WH) & RESORTS, INC.; ELISABETH GALE dba WYNDHAM CORPORATE OFFICE & HEADQUARTERS; BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-9700 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of his Order. Plaintiffs Cullum and Saleh, both of Brooklyn, New York, bring this pro se action invoking the Court's federal-question jurisdiction, citing the following statutes and regulations: Codes: 195, 196, 370, 371, 380, 385 & 446-Violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), U.S.C. Section 1635(f), 1640, Reg. Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.15(a)(3), 225.23(a)(3) & 226.23, - 15 U.S.C. Section 1611 (Criminal liability for willful & knowing violation); Section 1640 (Civil liability), Consumers Damage Section 1640; -- Failure to support the invoked Consumer Rights of Rescission 15 U.S.C. Section 1635 & failure to document property of a purchase - US Section 1026.15 Right of Rescission. N.Y. Penal Law Section 260.32. N.Y. Penal Law Section 260.34. N.Y. Penal Law (Section 349-350-e); Section 155.30(4) - N.Y. Penal Law Gen. Bus. Section 350.; Statute of Frauds GOB Section 5-703; N.Y. Penal Law Section 70.; New York Penal Law Section 165.15, Section 165.17. The Plaintiffs sue the following Defendants: (1) Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., of Parsippany, New Jersey; (2) Wyndham Destinations Inc., of Orlando, Florida; (3) Geoffrey A. Ballotti, the President and CEO of Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., of Parsippany, New Jersey; (4) Wyndham Hotels (WH) & Resorts, Inc., of Parsippany, New Jersey; (5) Elisabeth Gale dba Wyndham Corporate Office & Headquarters, of Orlando, Florida; and (6) Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, which may be located in Brentwood, New York. The Plaintiffs seek the following relief: a. Individual Lawsuit Action - Established by the Plaintiff alleging failure to Perform in the following actions Negligence, $376,000 Individual (Judgement Compensatory, Injury, Pain & Suffering of Financial Losses). b. Class Action Lawsuit - Against SM Corporation: Defendant $15.4 Billion Dollars at = 500K Consumers at $30,000 minimum paid for timeshares they can't use = — Relief of their Timeshares who hadn't been paid back & are dissolved of amounts of money they paid funds into a fraudulent scheme to defraud elderly citizens as citizens has a right to be refunded all payments, repaid and damages awarded of $30K per person also (Default judgment, Summary Judgment, & also Judgment on the pleadings). The Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and state civil and criminal law, but do not specify the particulars of the underlying conduct to support such claims. They do allege that sometime between Jan. 19, 2019 and the present, in unspecified locations within the States of New York, New Jersey, and Florida, the Defendants: used high-pressure sales tactics to pressure them into buying; misrepresented what the Plaintiffs would receive as part of the ownership; told the Plaintiffs the timeshare is an investment opportunity, and they completely misrepresented the need for respect, clarity, and honesty; they did not care about the fraudulent and deceitful misrepresentation they posed to hurt consumers; did not fully disclose the cost of maintenance fees and special assessment fees; did not thoroughly discuss financing terms; and they did not disclose the Plaintiffs right of recission. The Plaintiffs further allege that they are the victims of wrongful fraud of deceptive, and manipulative trade/business practices. They also assert that they are victims of wrongful time share assignment, temporary/provisional holding of credit card payments and monetary allocation of deceptive payments delivered. To the extent that the Plaintiffs assert claims in which they seek the criminal investigation and prosecution of any of the Defendants, such claims must be dismissed, Judge Abrams holds. He says the Plaintiffs cannot initiate a prosecution in this Court because the decision to prosecute is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. They, moreover, cannot direct prosecutors to initiate a criminal proceeding against the Defendants because prosecutors possess discretionary authority to bring criminal actions and are immune from control or interference by citizen or court. Accordingly, Judge Abrams dismisses, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, any claims in which the Plaintiffs seek the criminal prosecution of any of the Defendants. The Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims that they suggest. Nonetheless, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement establishing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Judge Abrams finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not satisfy the Rule 8 pleading requirements because the allegations are generalized conclusions about the Defendants' conduct that lack specific factual support. They do not provide enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that Defendants are liable for the alleged misconduct. Thus, the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In light of the Plaintiffs' pro se status, Judge Abrams grants the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the Rule 8 pleading requirements. In the "Statement of Claim" section of their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs must provide a short and plain statement of the specific facts supporting each claim against each Defendant. If they have an address for any named Defendant, they must provide it. The Plaintiffs should include all the information in the amended complaint that they want the Court to consider. Because the Plaintiffs' amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that the Plaintiffs want to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs have not, moreover, alleged facts establishing that the Court is the proper venue for their claims. The Plaintiffs both reside in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, which is within the Eastern District of New York. They allege that Defendants are or may be located in Parsippany, New Jersey, which is within the District of New Jersey; in Orlando, Florida, which is within the Middle District of Florida; or in Brentwood, Suffolk County, New York, which is also located in the Eastern District of New York. They also allege that the events giving rise to their claims occurred in unspecified locations in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Without more, these allegations do not establish that the Court is a proper venue for the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs must allege facts in their amended complaint establishing that venue in the Court is proper. Judge Abrams grants the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth. They must submit the amended complaint to the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of his Order, caption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 1:22-CV-9700 (RA). The Defendants are not required to respond until after the Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. If the Plaintiffs fail to comply within the time allowed, and they cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court may dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Judge Abrams certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from his Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/423x3d73 from Leagle.com. YATSEN HOLDING: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Maeshiro ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MAESHIRO v. YATSEN HOLDING LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08165-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. 5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. 6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. Yatsen Holding is a China-based holding company engaged in production and sales of cosmetics and skincare products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C1BIi2 at no extra charge.[CC] ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILGUN SALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZWANGER & PESIRI RADIOLOGY GROUP, LLP, VANVORST LAW FIRM, PLLC, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 2:19-cv-00275-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Since such a dismissal does not constitute an adjudication of the merits of Sali's claim under the FDCPA, the case is dismissed without prejudice. The Court treats the parties' letters as a fully briefed motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). In 2021, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs with claims for statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") lacked constitutional standing unless they have suffered concrete harm having a "close relationship to harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts." TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties have submitted letter briefs addressing the effect of Ramirez on the plaintiff's standing to assert claims for statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In December of 2018, Nilgun Sali received a letter from the VanVorst Law Firm. The letter stated that VanVorst was "acting in [its] capacity as a debt collector" on behalf of its client, Zwanger & Pesiri Radiology Group ("Zwanger"), and that, according to Zwanger's records, Sali had a balance due of $129.13. Sali brought a putative class action against VanVorst and Zwanger under the FDCPA. She alleges that VanVorst "only operates under the exclusive control of ZWANGER," and therefore, that the letter violated -- among otherprovisions of the FDCPA -- the act's explicit ban on any communication from a debt collector containing "the false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that the communication is from an attorney." She seeks "statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as deemed appropriate by this Court" on behalf of herself and "all others similarly situated." On November 20, 2020, the Court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that VanVorst was under Zwanger's exclusive control and, accordingly, denied both defendants' motions to dismiss for failure for state a claim; the issue of standing was not raised or addressed. On March 18, 2022, the Court denied Sali's motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal upon resolution of defendants' anticipated motions for summary judgment. Those motions have not yet been submitted because the standing issue was raised during discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FPLTHp at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 2023. 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 ***