/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 20 Headlines ACUITY BRANDS: Sued in Georgia Court Over Data Breach AMERICAN HONDA: Summary Judgment Bid in Quackenbush Granted in Part AMICA MUTUAL: Merullo Appeals Ruling Dismissing Insurance Suit ANTELOPE VALLEY: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages APERION CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Jackson Says APPLE INC: Herrera Sues Over Unlawful Harvesting of Data ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Thomas Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Children Maltreatment BENEDICTINE UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BHAVIN INVESTMENTS: Smith Appeals Judgment, Dismissal Ruling BIOVENTUS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13 BIRD BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Griffin Suit Granted BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Martin Suit Granted BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Sherrod Suit Granted BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Moore Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Crawford Suit BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Waxman Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Beverly B3 Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Binder B3 Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Greene B3 Suit BURT'S BEES INC: Lester Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois CANADA: Military Cadet Program Sexual Abuse Class Action Pending CAR TOYS INC: Karroll Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice CODY ASKINS: Elzen TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CORRECTIONS CORP: Tardy's Bid to Intervene in Grae Suit Denied CYTODYN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over COVID Drug Viability DANGO PRODUCTS: Kaye Sues Over Automated Telephonic Sales Calls DEN-TEX CENTRAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Barranco Says DR. BERG HOLDINGS: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Sues to Recover Overtime Pay ELON PROPERTY: $500K Class Deal in Yost Suit Wins Final Approval ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Fire ESS TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13 FCTI INC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Polvay Class FEGHALI FOODS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass. GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Feb. 24 GENERAL MOTORS: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by Jan. 27 GENWORTH LIFE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in McMillan GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Junked GGG DEMOLITION: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GO FLORIDA: Does Not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moore Says GOFUND ADVANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Haymount RICO Suit Denied HOMEAGLOW INC: Hovis Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. HOUSING WORKS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HP INC: Court Dismisses Freund Class Suit With Leave to Amend HYPER MICROSYSTEMS: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Scanning JABIL CIRCUIT: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation JORDAN SCHOOL: 10th Cir. Ruling in Title IX Class Suit Discussed JPMORGAN CHASE: Pessin Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. KEY STAFFING INC: Roby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KING UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LITTLE ROCK, AR: Edwards Files ADA Suit in E.D. Arkansas LUCID GROUP: Motion for Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Granted MARCO & FAMILY: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MAZDA MOTOR: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to April 2 MAZDA MOTOR: Fuel Pump Recall Prompts Class Action Lawsuit MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Law Firms Join Forces to File Data Breach Suit MEDICAL SECURITY: Extension of Discovery Deadlines Sought MIDLAND CREDIT: Spence Files Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters MIGUEL CARDONA: Intervenors Seek Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal MYLOCKER.COM LLC: Standing Order Entered on Patagonia Class Suit NATIONAL MENTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Hagans Class Suit NEW JERSEY: Law School Students Played Role in Abuse Suit Deal OCEAN AVENUE: Bamla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation OLIN CORP: Bid to Extend Class Cert Discovery Deadlines OK'd PAW BRANDS LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEAK TECHNICAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENSAR BIG: Faces Sweat Suit Over Shift Managers' Unpaid Wages PFIZER INC: Walter Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. PRAIRIE HOME: Burayi Sues Over Resident Aides' Unpaid Wages RICHARD T. AVIS: Baeza Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas RIVIER UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ROSEVILLE, CA: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Hill-Colbert SHIELDS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $1.9M Data Breach SNAPCOMMERCE GOODS: Khargie Files Suit in N.D. California SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 13 SPOTIFY USA: Saleh Wiretapping Suit Removed to D.N.J. STABILITY AI: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Artists' Copyright STATEWIDE COLLECTION: Silber Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York SUPERIOR TANK CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson Class Suit TWITTER INC: Laid-Off Workers Can't Pursue Claims Via Class Action UHG I LLC: Powell Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Sues Over Staff Accountants' Unpaid Wages UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Muccio Class Suit Over Automated Texts UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Invasion Class Action UNLIMITED ENTERPRISES: Underpays Logistics Drivers, Beltran Says VIDEOJEEVES INC: Robbins Files Suit in N.D. California WALMART INC: Hearing on Haro Conditional Status Bid Set for Feb. 22 WEST VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Jonathan R. v. Justice WING FINANCIAL: Stoichev Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma ********* ACUITY BRANDS: Sued in Georgia Court Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Acuity Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that a class action was filed against the company alleging claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. On December 14, 2022, a former employee filed a putative class action complaint against the company in the United States District court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons whose personal information was compromised as a result of data security incidents the company experienced in October 2020 and/or December 2021. The plaintiff alleges that the company failed to exercise reasonable caution in securing and safeguarding her and the other putative class members' personal information, and on that basis, asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, certain injunctive relief regarding the company's data-security measures, additional credit-monitoring services, other equitable relief (including disgorgement), attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company based in Georgia. AMERICAN HONDA: Summary Judgment Bid in Quackenbush Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY QUACKENBUSH, MARISSA FEENEY, and ANNE PELLETTIERI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese Corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 20-05599 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Vehicle owners who purchased their cars from authorized Honda dealers allege that an engine component within their cars, namely, the variable timing control actuator 14310-R44-A01 ("VTC actuator"), was defective. Sometimes, the VTC actuator rattled on vehicle ignition due to the premature disengagement of a stopper pin located within it. Honda discovered the problem beginning in 2008 after receiving complaints of rattling and pursued an eight-year investigation. After implementing numerous countermeasures to cure the problem, Honda ultimately replaced the VTC actuator model with a new part. The Plaintiffs say Honda's failure to disclose this defect injured them and posed a significant safety hazard. The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in August 2020, then a first amendment in November 2020, the operative complaint. A motion to dismiss failed in its entirety in February 2021. Discovery ensued for several months, and plaintiffs moved for class certification in October 2021. In December 2021, after full briefing and additional discovery disputes, an order certified three classes. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. An order dated April 27, 2022, redefined the certified classes and clarified the operative class claims. There are now three certified classes. First, Quackenbush represents the "California Repair Class," which consists of all persons who purchased a new or used class vehicle equipped with a VTC actuator from an authorized Honda dealer in California, and who paid to have their VTC actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in California. This class is pursuing certified claims for (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (3) fraudulent omission. In her individual capacity, Quackenbush also pursues claims for breach of implied warranty pursuant to (1) California's Song-Beverly Act and (2) California Commercial Code Section 2314. Second, Feeney represents the "Illinois Repair Class," which consists of all persons who purchased a new or used class vehicle equipped with a VTC actuator from an authorized dealer in Illinois, and who paid to have their VTC actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois. This class is pursuing claims for (1) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") and (2) fraudulent omission. In her individual capacity, Feeney also pursues a claim for breach of implied warranty pursuant to Section 2-316 of the Illinois Commercial Code. Third, Pellettieri represents the "Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class" which consists of current owners of both new and used class vehicles who purchased their class vehicles equipped with a VTC actuator from an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois, and former owners of the same who resold (or traded it in) to an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois. No member of the Illinois Repair Class can be a member of this class, and any purchaser who received an actuator replacement free of charge is excluded. This class is pursuing the same claims as the Illinois Repair class, namely, (1) violation of the ICFA and (2) fraudulent omission. In her individual capacity, Pellettieri also pursues a breach of implied warranty claim in violation of Section 2-316 of the Illinois Commercial Code. The Defendants now move for summary judgment on all named Plaintiffs' individual implied warranty claims, Pellettieri's ICFA and fraudulent omission claims, the California Repair Class' fraudulent omission claim, and various damages arguments under both Illinois and California law. First, the Plaintiffs do not challenge dismissal of Pellettieri and Feeney's claims for breach of implied warranty in violation of Section 2-316 of the Illinois Commercial Code. Accordingly, Judge Alsup grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Illinois implied warranty claims. Second, the Defendants offer no argument for summary judgment regarding Quackenbush's implied warranty claim under the California Song-Beverly Act. Accordingly, that claim remains ripe for resolution by a jury. They, however, move for summary judgment on Quackenbush's implied warranty claim under Section 2314 of the California Commercial Code. The Plaintiff Quackenbush acknowledges the general privity requirement, but nevertheless argues Gilbert Financial Corporation v. Steelform Contracting, 145 Cal.Rptr. 448, 450 (Ct. App. 1978), has since been broadened by Burch v. Superior Court. 223 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1422-23 (2014). Judge Alsup disagrees. He says the exception to the privity requirement derived from Gilbert and Burch is most accurately summarized as "a real property owner could maintain a cause of action against a subcontractor for breach of an implied warranty of quality and fitness despite the lack of a contract between the owner and the subcontractor." Maintaining the application of the exception to the real estate context is in alignment with the California authority and provides deference to California courts to define their own exceptions. As California law currently stands, save and except for real estate construction cases allowing the homeowner to sue the subcontractor, no third-party beneficiary exception has ever been applied in a citable decision. The exception simply cannot apply in the present case. Judge Alsup says if broadened in the manner plaintiff now seeks, the privity requirement would vanish. All end-user purchasers of consumer products could claim exempted status. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted. Third, Honda argues Pellettieri's fraudulent omission and ICFA claims are time-barred because the limitation period had passed before she was added to plaintiffs' first amended complaint on Nov. 13, 2020. The applicable limitation periods are five years for fraudulent omission and three years for the ICFA. The parties are in dispute as to when Pellettieri had enough information to reasonably reach a conclusion that her car was defective and that the defect was wrongfully caused by Honda. Judge Alsup finds that the evidence is conflicting as to whether and when Pellettieri had enough information to conclude that she was injured, and that the injury was wrongfully caused. A jury could reasonably find that Pellettieri's claim is not time-barred due to the Defendants' lulling her into a false sense of security through misleading statements. Thus, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations as to Pellettieri's fraudulent omission and ICFA claims is denied. These claims, however, suffer from a class-wide defect. Moreover, Judge Alsup finds that the fraudulent omission claim is not focused on redeeming damages only based on the defect of rattling itself. A genuine dispute exists as to whether the defect (the rattling VTC actuator) is causing other physical safety hazards (various alleged effects on the engine itself). This will be left to the jury to decide. Hence, summary judgment on the California Repair Class fraudulent omission claim is denied. Fourth, the Defendants assert that the cost of repair does not qualify as a form of restitution under the UCL or CLRA. Judge Alsup finds the Defendants incorrect. He says reimbursing the class members for the cost of repair would be a classic form of restitution under the UCL and CLRA, assuming, of course, that the Plaintiffs prove liability. Again, members of this class by definition have already paid out-of-pocket for the repair. He rejects the Defendants' argument that plaintiffs have failed to show an inadequate remedy at law and thus cannot also be awarded restitution. The Defendants also attempt to make a tracing argument, stating that Quackenbush and other plaintiffs cannot clearly trace their particular funds or property to the Defendants, as they have paid money to a third-party dealership. Thus, the argument goes, the Plaintiffs cannot successfully establish restitution, which requires the Defendants to return the Plaintiffs' unfairly obtained money. Judge Alsup holds that the Defendants' attempt to distance themselves from profits gained by their own certified dealers cannot rightfully prevail, especially given that they refused to provide evidence during discovery that would permit the Plaintiffs to make such a showing. In this respect, the Defendants are hoisted by their own petard. This motion is denied. Fifth, regarding only the Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class, the Defendants argued at the hearing that there can be no recovery for damages for either fraudulent omission or violation of the ICFA, because the Plaintiffs have not shown that "injury is imminent or at least quite likely to occur." Judge Alsup finds that to use repair cost as a proxy for the diminution of value caused by the risk of a need for repair would provide a windfall. Under Daubert, he won't not let that theory go to the jury. There being no class-wide method of proving the diminution of value, he dismisses these claims with prejudice. Finally, the Defendants attempt to resolve all the class and the individual Plaintiffs' claims by globally arguing that there is in fact no safety-related defect. As Judge Alsup explained, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently offered proof of physical damages to their engines as a result of the VTC actuator rattling at start up. The Defendants attempt to combat this showing by various counter arguments. Such defenses are not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment. They will be free to make all arguments regarding the existence and salience of the alleged defect and resulting damages to a jury, who will ultimately decide this hotly contested issue. Hence, summary judgment of all claims on the basis of a "no-defect" argument is denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup resolves the Defendants' summary judgment motion as follows: (1) Feeney's and Pellettieri's individual implied warranty claims are dismissed; (2) Quackenbush's individual implied warranty claim under Section 2314 is dismissed (3) the Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class's fraudulent omission and ICFA claims are dismissed. Summary judgment as to all remaining claims and arguments is denied. Trial is set for July 24, 2023, at 8:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2782myaz from Leagle.com. AMICA MUTUAL: Merullo Appeals Ruling Dismissing Insurance Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff MICHAEL MERULLO filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Order and Judgment dated December 5, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL MERULLO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-10410-DJC, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant alleging breach of contract (Count I), violations of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A and c. 176D (Counts II-VI) and seeking declaratory judgment (Count VII). Defendant Amica has moved to dismiss Merullo's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On May 29, 2020, Merullo's vehicle was damaged in a collision with an Amica-insured driver. The driver was insured under the 2016 edition of the Massachusetts standard auto policy ("2016 Standard Policy"). Part 4 of the 2016 Standard Policy allows for third-party recovery of property damage. Mr. Merullo demanded payment from Amica to repair his vehicle and for the inherent diminution in value ("IDV") the vehicle suffered as a result of the accident. IDV is calculated as the difference between the market value of an automobile immediately before a collision, and its market value after the collision, even assuming full repair. Amica refused to provide Merullo any recovery for his vehicle's IDV. Mr. Merullo instituted this action in Middlesex Superior Court. Amica removed the action to the Massachusetts District Court, and moved to dismiss Merullo's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court heard the parties on the motion and took the matter under advisement. On December 5, Judge Denise J. Casper of the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. He concluded that Merullo's underlying claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Dismissal of his claim for declaratory judgment that he is entitled to IDV under Part 4 of the 2016 Standard Policy is likewise warranted. The appellate case is captioned as Merullo v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 9, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance form, docketing statement, and transcript report/order form were due on January 23, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL MERULLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Forrest, Esq. YASI & YASI, P.C. Two Salem Green Salem, MA 01970-0000 Telephone: (877) 599-8890 - and - Kevin J. McCullough, Esq. MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC 10 Derby St Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (978) 744-8000 Defendant-Appellee AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Anthony Joseph Antonellis, Esq. Christopher Michael Reilly, Esq. SLOANE & WALSH LLP 1 Boston Pl 201 Washington St., Ste 1600 Boston, MA 02108-0000 Telephone: (617) 523-6010 - and - Mara E. Finkelstein, Esq. SLOANE & WALSH LLP 148 Eastern Blvd., Ste 105 Glastonbury, CT 06033 Telephone: (617) 523-6010 ANTELOPE VALLEY: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Evalinda Martinez, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees v. ANTELOPE VALLEY OUTPATIENT IMAGING CENTER, LLC, a California corporation.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01034 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought under Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensations. The Defendants violated the Labor Code by failing to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage, all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay, failing to authorize or permit all legally required and/or legally compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages, failing to authorize or permit all legally required and/or legally compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages, statutory penalties for failing to timely pay earned wages; statutory penalties for failing to provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failing to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly non-exempt position at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles. ANTELOPE VALLEY OUTPATIENT IMAGING CENTER, LLC, is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. Arie Ebrahimian, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (213) 213-0000 Facsimile: (213) 213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com APERION CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGINA JACKSON, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APERION CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00139 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages and other damages for time worked off-the-clock during and outside of the auto deducted meal periods. Ms. Jackson was a certified nursing assistant for Aperion who worked from approximately October 2018 through November 2021. Aperion Care, Inc. provides health care facilities. The Company offers skilled nursing, long, short term, psychiatric rehabilitation services with headquarters in Lincolnwood, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com APPLE INC: Herrera Sues Over Unlawful Harvesting of Data -------------------------------------------------------- Juan Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00411 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its practice of harvesting data from iPhones and Apple's other consumer personal computing devices, such as iPads, Macs using apps from the Apple "App Store," etc., [hereinafter "User Information" or "UI"] which violate state consumer deceptive practice and advertising laws; federal and state trespass laws; and breaches of various equitable principles and of common law. Apple records vast amounts of User Information without the consent or even the knowledge of Plaintiff from all of his consumer computing devices that can utilize "apps" from Apple's online App Store. UI is, in fact collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant to, inter alia, sell targeted advertisements to third parties that are specifically targeted at various demographics. While the details of the Defendant's violations and illegal behavior are very technical and complicated, it all boils down to a very simple idea: for all of Apple's promises about how private your iPhone is, the company vacuums up a lot of data about consumers without permission. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose UI was harvested, acquired, and/or misappropriated because of Defendant's surreptitious and unauthorized access of such UI. The Defendant's conduct amounts to breach of implied contract, violation of federal and state criminal computer trespass statutes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally and willfully accessing, recording, harvesting, and storing user actions, activities, inputs, and other metadata and for future financial gain, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current iPhone customer and has bought several successive iPhones. Apple describes itself as a company which "designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul C. Whalen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 426-6870 Email: pcwhalen@pm.me - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Thomas Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHONA THOMAS and MEGAN REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., TOYODA GOSEI NORTH AMERICA, INC., GENERAL MOTORS, HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD., MOBIS PARTS AMERICA, LLC, HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI-KIA AMERICA TECHNICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05067, was removed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 11, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00141-ELR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Class against all Defendants for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act by participating in misleading, false, and deceptive acts, including by failing to disclose and concealing the inflator defect of Class purchased vehicles. The Defendants are automobile manufacturers in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Flowers, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. 2nd Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Children Maltreatment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Trigger of ABC News reports that a girl with severe autism was locked in solitary confinement at a West Australian juvenile detention centre for more than seven months, documents filed in the Australian Federal Court claim. The allegations form part of a class action involving more than 500 children and young adults who have been held in Western Australia's notorious Banksia Hill Detention Centre. In an affidavit filed to the Federal Court last year but only published on Wednesday, lawyer Stewart Levitt said the now 18-year-old woman was confined in the "Cue Unit" on and off between May 2018 and March 2020. The longest stretch she spent there was from September 10, 2018, until April 29, 2019, when she was around 13 years of age. In the affidavit, Mr Levitt alleges that while held there the girl was regularly locked in a cell alone for 23 hours a day. She was only allowed out for an hour each day into a small room, or a three-by-four metre concrete area enclosed by cyclone fencing. It is alleged that when the girl was taken out of solitary confinement to see her parents, her legs were shackled and her hands cuffed. The affidavit also alleges the girl was denied visits from her parents as punishment and she was forced to "earn" her bedding. "She felt that she was being treated like a dog and responded to this by sleeping on the concrete floor and pretending she was a dog, " the affidavit reads. "She would sleep on the bare floor rather than the mattress because the mattresses were dirty with saliva and excrement." It is alleged she was forced to spend extended time locked up in solitary confinement because her autism spectrum disorder (ASD) caused her to be reactive to disciplinary policies. It is also alleged that when she refused to change into underwear and uniforms stained with menstrual blood from other detainees, she was subjected to "use of force" by officers. "She found it intolerable to wear underwear and outer garments that had visible menstrual stains from their use by other detainees, "the affidavit said. "She was frequently subjected to strip searches and watched by officers while she was in the shower. " "She found these experiences distressing and humiliating." The document also alleges she was held down and had her head banged against a wall by multiple officers. "Many times, officers subjected her to instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs, leg shackles, and spit hoods," it said. "She found the use of force and imposition of restraints on her extremely traumatic and often reacted to these incidents by escalating her non-compliant behaviour and acts of self-harm." It is also claimed the girl was given very little access to education because of her long periods of solitary confinement and was not given adequate therapeutic support for her ASD. It is alleged the extended confinement, strip searches and use of force had a "compounding effect" on her disorder. The other lead applicant, a young man with an intellectual disability, was also allegedly subjected to excessive force and denied family visits. The affidavit alleges he was held in solitary confinement at one point for 10 days at a time. It also alleges he was subjected to a controversial restraint practice known as "folding up". The practice involves bending a child's legs over their buttocks and then pressing down. Following the airing of footage of the practice being applied to a detainee on the ABC's Four Corners, the Department of Justice last month announced it was being phased out. The affidavit alleges he was taunted about his intellectual and mental health disabilities by staff and not given access to any education while in the cell. The class action claims children held in the detention facility are subjected to discrimination, unlawful imprisonment, restraint and assault and battery. It alleges the state has breached its duty of care obligations to the children inside Banksia Hill. In the wake of mounting criticism of the facility, the West Australian government recently announced it would build a second youth justice facility in WA's Kimberley region. It has also announced a $63 million investment in improving and strengthening security in accommodation, education and training areas used by "high risk and difficult" detainees. A new "cultural support and enrichment service" will also be funded, which will be run by an Aboriginal-controlled organisation. A further $22 million will go towards hiring more staff, while $10 million will be spent on expanding multidisciplinary mental health services. The class action case is expected to take two to three years.[GN] BENEDICTINE UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benedictine University. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Benedictine University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00407 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Benedictine University -- https://ben.edu/ -- is a private Roman Catholic university in Lisle, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BHAVIN INVESTMENTS: Smith Appeals Judgment, Dismissal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Torin Smith filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated November 15, 2021 and Order dated October 13, 2022, entered in the lawsuit entitled Torin Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rajan Patel, Bhavin Investments, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-04035-SOH, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas-Texarkana. On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants, bringing claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of owed wages and overtime during his work while employed at a Super 8 Motel in Texarkana, Arkansas, that is owned and operated by Defendant Bhavin Investments, Inc. On August 11, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion for Default Judgment. On November 15, 2021, Honorable Susan O. Hickey entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Default Judgment. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Bhavin Investments, Inc. The judgment is for the amount of $42,000, with $21,000 calculated from unpaid minimum wages and overtime, and $21,000 in liquidated damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 216(d) and Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-218(a)(1). On October 13, 2022, Judge Hickey further entered an Order dismissing the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Torin Smith v. Rajan Patel, et al., Case No. 23-1037, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 9, 2023. Plaintiff-Appellant Torin Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN] BIOVENTUS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga of EIN News reports that if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Bioventus Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents in connection to the Company's IPO or Bioventus securities during the Class Period, you have until March 13, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioventus Inc. ("Bioventus" or the "Company") BVS and certain officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and docketed under 23-cv-00032, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bioventus Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 11, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Bioventus securities between February 11, 2021 and November 21, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bioventus is a medical device company that focuses on developing and commercializing clinical treatments to engage and enhance the body's natural healing process. On January 20, 2021, Bioventus filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on February 10, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On or about February 11, 2021, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Bioventus conducted the IPO, issuing 8 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at the Offering price of $13.00 per share. On February 12, 2021, Bioventus filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Bioventus suffered from significant liquidity issues; (ii) the Company's rebate practices were unsustainable; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the Company's business and financial prospects; (iv) Bioventus maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting with respect to the timely recognition of quarterly rebates; (v) all the foregoing increased the risk that the Company would be forced to recognize a significant non-cash impairment charge, could not timely file one or more of its financial reports, would have to amend one or more of its financial statements, and could not meet its financial obligations as they came due; and (vi) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On November 16, 2022, Bioventus issued a press release announcing that it could not timely file its quarterly report for third quarter of 2022 because "of the recent decline in the Company's market capitalization subsequent to its previously announced financial results for the third quarter of 2022," which resulted in the Company needing "additional time . . . to assess whether a non-cash impairment charge is required for the third quarter of 2022." Bioventus also revealed that it "is seeking resolution related to the validity of a revised invoice" for certain "rebate claims" and that "[t]he recognition of additional rebates may impact Bioventus' recently announced revenue guidance." In addition, Bioventus disclosed that "its internal controls related to the timely recognition of quarterly rebates were inadequate specifically for the period ended October 1, 2022" and that the Company "is also evaluating whether [it] will be able to meet all of its financial obligations as they come due within one year after the date its financial statements for the period ended October 1, 2022, are issued." Bioventus's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 33.67%, to close at $1.97 per share on November 17, 2022. Then, on November 21, 2022, Bioventus issued a press release announcing revised third quarter 2022 results to account for "additional rebate claims related to certain of the Company's products and a non-cash impairment charge" that amounted to $189.2 million "due to the recent decline in our market capitalization subsequent to our previously announced financial results for the three and nine months ended October 1, 2022." That same day, Bioventus belatedly filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the third quarter of 2022, advising of various changes to Bioventus's historical practices that were necessary to account for rebates, stating that these changes materially impacted the Company's evaluation of its ability to meet debt covenants, resulting in liquidity and going concern disclosures. Bioventus's stock price fell $0.07 per share, or 3.72%, to close at $1.81 per share on November 22, 2022, representing a total decline of 86.08% from the IPO price. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Bioventus's Class A common stock continues to trade below the $13.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Bioventus Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents in connection to the Company's IPO or Bioventus securities during the Class Period, you have until March 13, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] BIRD BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- INAKI GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. BIRD BOX; ARTUR KASABYAN; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV00613 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff files this suit over the Defendants' failure: to compensate for all hours worked; pay minimum wages; pay overtime; provide accurate itemized wage statements; pay wages owed every pay period; pay wages when employment ends; give rest breaks; give meal breaks; reimburse business expenses; provide personnel records; and provide pay records; as well as for unlawful tip collection, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of Public Policy. The Plaintiff started working for Bird Box in June 2021 with his employment ending in late 2021. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and earned $15/hour. Bird Box is a fast-food restaurant based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Griffin Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALICE M. GRIFFIN, et al. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al., SECTION M (4), Civil Action No. 17- 3244 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. denies Griffin's motion to deem admissible the opinions of their purported causation experts, Patricia Williams, Ph.D., C. Ann Conn, M.D., and Lee Lemond; b. grants BP's motion to exclude causation opinions of Williams; and c. grants BP's motion for summary judgment due to Griffin's inability to prove general causation. Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs Dannette Barthelemy and Kully Griffin, individually and on behalf of the decedent, Alice Griffin (collectively, "Griffin"), to deem admissible the opinions of their purported causation experts, Williams and Lemond, because of the Defendants' alleged spoliation of evidence related to the oil-spill cleanup workers' exposure to oil and other chemicals. Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. (collectively, "BP") respond in opposition. Also before the Court are three Daubert motions filed by BP to strike and exclude the causation opinions of Griffin's purported experts, Susan Andrews, Ph.D., Williams, and Conn. Griffin responds in opposition, and BP replies in further support of the motions. And, finally, before the Court is BP's motion for summary judgment arguing that the case should be dismissed because Griffin cannot prove general causation without an admissible expert opinion. Griffin responds in opposition, and BP replies in further support of the motion. The case is one of the "B3 cases" arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. The B3 plaintiffs all make claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g. dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in another section of the Court before Judge Carl J. Barbier. When Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon medical benefits class action settlement agreement, the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the settlement or were excluded from the class definition. Judge Barbier then severed the B3 cases from the MDL, and those cases were reallotted among the judges of the Court. Griffin alleges that she was exposed to weathered oil and dispersants when she worked at Moran's Motel in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, from April 20, 2010, until August of 2012 laundering clothes belonging to the spill cleanup workers housed at the motel. She originally sued for a whole host of medical conditions, but her claim for chronic toxic encephalopathy ("CTE") is the only one currently being pursued. Griffin opted out of the medical benefits class action settlement agreement. In this action, she asserts claims for negligence with respect to the oil spill and cleanup. In the case management order for the B3 bundle of cases, Judge Barbier noted that, to prevail, B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. He further observed that causation will likely be the make-or-break issue for many B3 cases, and the issue of causation in these toxic tort cases will require an individualized inquiry. Griffin offers the opinions of three purported experts in her attempt to prove causation: neuropsychologist Andrews, toxicologist Williams, and neurologist Conn. BP seeks to exclude all these experts, and consequently, the dismissal of Griffin's case for failure to prove causation. Griffin opposes BP's motions on the merits but also argues that her causation experts' opinions should be admitted due to BP's spoliation of evidence. First, Judge Ashe examines Griffin's spoliation motion. Griffin's spoliation motion is substantially the same as those filed by the plaintiffs and denied by the Court in other B3 cases, citing Fairley v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 16731817 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022); Moore v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 16694238 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022). As did the plaintiff in Fairley, Griffin argues that the Court should deem admissible the opinions of her purported general causation expert because BP spoliated evidence by failing to undertake a monitoring program to develop evidence of the cleanup workers' actual toxic exposures to the specific chemicals that were in the weathered oil. In Fairley, the Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming the purported general causation expert's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his expert report. As have other B3 plaintiffs, Griffin attempts to avoid this same outcome by attaching to her motion an affidavit executed by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety, in which she states that a monitoring program would have improved worker safety, would have helped to protect workers from long- and short- term health effects, and would have been the only way to obtain quantitative data on spill workers' exposures that could now be used to establish a person's exposure to a "given chemical at a given level." Dr. Birnbaum also attests that the Gulf Study is the best available evidence of the workers' exposures, and that it is not "plausible" to establish an oil-spill responder's quantitative exposure to a particular chemical at a given level based on the data that was collected during the spill response when considering the thousands of chemicals and other variables at play. The addition of Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not save Griffin's spoliation motion, Judge Ashe holds. Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not establish that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, nor that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it. Moreover, Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not provide evidence that BP acted in bad faith. Thus, like the plaintiff in Fairley, Griffin has not met her burden on spoliation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Order & Reasons issued in Fairley, which are not altered by Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit, Griffin's spoliation motion must be denied. Next, Judge Ashe examines BP's Daubert motion to exclude Williams. Griffin offers Williams, a board-certified toxicologist with a doctorate in anatomy, as a general and specific causation expert. Williams offers a general causation opinion that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between arsenic exposure and CTE, and a specific causation opinion that Griffin's CTE was caused by arsenic exposure sustained while washing clothes of the cleanup workers. BP argues that Williams's opinions should be excluded because she does not identify the dose of arsenic known to cause any form of CTE or Griffin's dose of exposure to arsenic. Judge Ashe holds that because identification of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical is one of the minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a toxic tort case, and Williams has not provided this information with respect to the general population, her report is unreliable and her general causation opinions inadmissible. This is not the first court to so hold. Accordingly, BP's motion in limine to exclude Williams' testimony must be granted. Finally, Judge Ashe examines BP's motion for summary judgment. BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Griffin lacks general causation expert testimony. As he explained, Judge Ashe has excluded Williams as a general causation expert. Without a general causation expert, Griffin's claims arising from chemical exposure must be dismissed with prejudice. Like the plaintiff in Jenkins v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., Griffin attempts to save her case with Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit, but for the same reasons given in that case, the affidavit neither cures nor explains the deficiencies in the report of Griffin's purported general causation expert. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denies Griffin's spoliation motion; grants BP's motion to strike and exclude the general causation opinion of Williams, grants BP's motion for summary judgment; and dismissed with prejudice Griffin's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/525brar5 from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Martin Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STERLING MARTIN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al., SECTION M (5), Civil Action No. 17-3249 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. denies Martin's motion to deem admissible the opinions of their purported causation experts, Patricia Williams, Ph.D., C. Ann Conn, M.D., and Lee Lemond; b. grants BP's motion to exclude causation opinions of Williams; and c. grants BP's motion for summary judgment due to Martin's inability to prove general causation. Before the Court is a motion by Martin to deem admissible the opinions of their purported causation experts, Williams, Conn, and Lemond, because of the Defendants' alleged spoliation of evidence related to the oil-spill cleanup workers' exposure to oil and other chemicals. Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. (collectively, "BP") respond in opposition. Also before the Court are three Daubert motions filed by BP to strike and exclude the causation opinions of Martin's purported experts, Susan Andrews, Ph.D., Williams, and Conn. Martin responds in opposition, and BP replies in further support of the motions. And, finally, before the Court is BP's motion for summary judgment arguing that the case should be dismissed because Martin cannot prove general causation without an admissible expert opinion. Martin responds in opposition, and BP replies in further support of the motion. The case is one of the "B3 cases" arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. The B3 plaintiffs all make claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g. dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in another section of the Court before Judge Carl J. Barbier. When Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon medical benefits class action settlement agreement, the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the settlement or were excluded from the class definition. Judge Barbier then severed the B3 cases from the MDL, and those cases were reallotted among the judges of the Court. Martin alleges that he was exposed to weathered oil and dispersants when he performed oil-spill cleanup work for 79 days in the summer of 2010, near Horn Island, Mississippi, as the captain of a vessel.16 He originally sued for a whole host of medical conditions, but his claim for chronic toxic encephalopathy ("CTE") is the only one currently being pursued. He opted out of the medical benefits class action settlement agreement. In this action, he asserts claims for negligence with respect to the oil spill and cleanup. In the case management order for the B3 bundle of cases, Judge Barbier noted that, to prevail, B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. He further observed that causation will likely be the make-or-break issue for many B3 cases, and the issue of causation in these toxic tort cases will require an individualized inquiry. Martin offers the opinions of three purported experts in his attempt to prove causation: neuropsychologist Andrews, toxicologist Williams, and neurologist Conn. BP seeks to exclude all these experts, and consequently, the dismissal of Martin's case for failure to prove causation. Martin opposes BP's motions on the merits but also argues that his causation experts' opinions should be admitted due to BP's spoliation of evidence. First, Judge Ashe examines Martin's spoliation motion. Martin's spoliation motion is substantially the same as those filed by the plaintiffs and denied by the Court in other B3 cases, citing Fairley v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 16731817 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022); Moore v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 16694238 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022). As did the plaintiff in Fairley, Martin argues that the Court should deem admissible the opinions of her purported general causation expert because BP spoliated evidence by failing to undertake a monitoring program to develop evidence of the cleanup workers' actual toxic exposures to the specific chemicals that were in the weathered oil. In Fairley, the Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming the purported general causation expert's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his expert report. As have other B3 plaintiffs, Martin attempts to avoid this same outcome by attaching to her motion an affidavit executed by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety, in which she states that a monitoring program would have improved worker safety, would have helped to protect workers from long- and short- term health effects, and would have been the only way to obtain quantitative data on spill workers' exposures that could now be used to establish a person's exposure to a "given chemical at a given level." Dr. Birnbaum also attests that the Gulf Study is the best available evidence of the workers' exposures, and that it is not "plausible" to establish an oil- spill responder's quantitative exposure to a particular chemical at a given level based on the data that was collected during the spill response when considering the thousands of chemicals and other variables at play. The addition of Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not save Martin's spoliation motion, Judge Ashe holds. Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not establish that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, nor that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it. Moreover, Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not provide evidence that BP acted in bad faith. Thus, like the plaintiff in Fairley, Martin has not met her burden on spoliation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Order & Reasons issued in Fairley, which are not altered by Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit, Martin's spoliation motion must be denied. Next, Judge Ashe examines BP's Daubert motion to exclude Williams. Martin offers Williams, a board-certified toxicologist with a doctorate in anatomy, as a general and specific causation expert. Williams offers a general causation opinion that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between arsenic exposure and CTE, and a specific causation opinion that Martin's CTE was caused by arsenic exposure sustained while washing clothes of the cleanup workers. BP argues that Williams' opinions should be excluded because she does not identify the dose of arsenic known to cause any form of CTE or Martin's dose of exposure to arsenic. Judge Ashe holds that because identification of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical is one of the minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a toxic tort case, and Williams has not provided this information with respect to the general population, her report is unreliable and her general causation opinions inadmissible. This is not the first court to so hold. Accordingly, BP's motion in limine to exclude Williams' testimony must be granted. Finally, Judge Ashe examines BP's motion for summary judgment. BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Martin lacks general causation expert testimony. As he explained, Judge Ashe has excluded Williams as a general causation expert. Without a general causation expert, Martin's claims arising from chemical exposure must be dismissed with prejudice. Like the plaintiff in Jenkins v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., Martin attempts to save her case with Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit, but for the same reasons given in that case, the affidavit neither cures nor explains the deficiencies in the report of Martin's purported general causation expert. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denies Martin's spoliation motion; grants BP's motion to strike and exclude the general causation opinion of Williams; grants BP's motion for summary judgment; and dismissed with prejudice Martin's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/3daupuuw from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Sherrod Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER SHERROD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (1), Civil Action No. No. 17- 3410 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Sherrod opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on April 12, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately 14 months in 2010 and 2011, he worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Biloxi, Pascagoula, Horn Island, Ship Island, Cat Island, and Petit Bois Island, Mississippi. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including rashes, irritation, itching, dermatitis, eczema, pruritic boils, dermatophytosis, weakness, fatigue, headaches, nasal congestion, sinusitis, depression, panic attacks, anxiety, psychosis, hallucinations, suicidal and homicidal ideations, GERD, abdominal pains, vomiting, diarrhea, dental pain, caries, and pulpitis. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 5, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5a4htd4e from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Moore Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FELICIA MOORE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (5), Civil Action No. No. 17-3576 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Moore opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants on April 18, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately one month in 2010, she worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Gulf Shores, Fort Morgan, Theodore, and Earnest Beach, Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused her to suffer myriad injuries including rash, itching, contact dermatitis, eczema, boils, skin blistering, crusting, dryness, flaking, inflammation, redness or swelling, welts, chemical pneumonitis, dyspnea, respiratory abnormalities, headaches, migraines, sore nose, difficulty swallowing, allergic rhinosinusitis, sinus congestion, chronic rhinitis, decreased sense of smell, facial pain, sinus pain, atypical chest pain, loss of visual acuity, eye irritation, joint pain, weakness, body aches, fevers, abdominal cramps and pain, and diarrhea. Specifically, she seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support her claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before this Court as well as in other cases before other sections of this court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 19, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of her expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xfznt4b from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Crawford Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PATRICK CRAWFORD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (5), Civil Action No. 17-3136 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Crawford opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on April 10, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately four months in 2010, he worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Gulfport, Long Beach, Pass Christian, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including rash, skin irritation, URI, acute bronchitis, nasal congestion, sinus problems, dizziness, acute migraine, bodily aches, hypertension, chest pain, shortness of breath, numbness, conjunctivitis, and blurred vision. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Aug. 8, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/2xsde5jm from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Waxman Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID WAXMAN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (2), Civil Action No. No. 17-4222 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Waxman opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on April 28, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately 12 months in 2010 and 2011, he worked as a mechanic and cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas near Theodore, Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including abdominal pain, pelvic mass, diastasis of abdomen, boils, abscess, shortness of breath, COPD, asthma, wheezing, pneumonia, respiratory failure, fatigue, dizziness, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea, acute bronchitis, upper respiratory infection, cough, sore throat, sensorineural hearing loss, nosebleed, difficulty swallowing, difficulty hearing, earache, ringing in ears, chest pain, joint pain, elevated blood pressure, and headaches. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 19, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjkwyjhk from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Beverly B3 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLEOPHUS BEVERLY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (5), Civil Action No. No. 17-3482 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Beverly opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on April 17, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately 16 months in 2010 and 2011, he worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with, inter alia, cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Pascagoula, Biloxi, Gulfport, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including diarrhea, gastroenteritis, colitis, abdominal pain, headache, nausea, shortness of breath, asthma, wheezing, chest pain and tightness, tingling in feet, allergic rhinitis, decreased sense of smell, facial pain or sinus pain, nasal congestion, throat irritation, dizziness, eye irritation, skin blistering, crusting, dryness, flaking, itching, lesions, peeling, and scaling. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Aug. 8, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a8rfehw from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Binder B3 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMMIE BINDER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (4), Civil Action No. No. 17-3636 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Binder opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants on April 18, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately nine months in 2010, the Plaintiff worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Biloxi, Mississippi, Theodore and Dauphin Island, Alabama, and Panama City, Florida. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including sore throat, cough, nosebleed, congestion, nasal discharge, headache, blurred vision, eye burning, nausea, stomach pain, gastrointestinal complaints, vomiting, abdominal cramps, burning in chest, bronchospasm, wheezing, shortness of breath, onset asthma, hemoptysis, COPD with chronic bronchitis, renal calculi, sleep apnea, seizure, acne vulgaris, boils, crusting, dryness, flaking, inflammation, redness, swelling, itching, scaling, welts, and fatigue. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 19, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4yvw8vrv from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Greene B3 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY GREENE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (4), Civil Action No. No. 17-3997 (E.D. La.), Judge Windy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Greene opposes both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Moore opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on April 25, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately six months in 2010, he worked as both an onshore and offshore cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Hopedale, Louisiana, Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi, and Loxely, Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including skin irritation, itching, rashes, severe headaches, sleep disturbance, profuse perspiration, mood swings, respiratory symptoms, shortness of breath, chest pain, restlessness, cold sweats, fatigue, diarrhea, migraines, nausea, eating problems, and dizziness. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 19, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3 plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish causation. In the case, the Plaintiffs must provide reliable expert testimony establishing the requisite level of exposure necessary to cause each alleged physical harm. Accordingly, failure to properly identify the level of exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur necessarily renders a general causation opinion to be unreliable and, thus, inadmissible. Judge Vitter explains that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mshv9sju from Leagle.com. BURT'S BEES INC: Lester Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tiffany Lester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Burt's Bees, Inc., Case No. 2022LA001049 was removed from the Illinois Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00138-SMY to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud. Burt's Bees -- https://www.burtsbees.com/ -- offers natural personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Green, Esq. Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 P.O. Box 959 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 656-5150 Fax: (618) 656-6230 Email: kevin@ghalaw.com rick@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com - and - Daniel Scott Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-5799 Fax: (314) 241-5788 Email: daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Russell Perdew, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606-4410 Phone: (312) 443-1712 Fax: (312) 896-6712 Email: rperdew@lockelord.com CANADA: Military Cadet Program Sexual Abuse Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Raycraft, writing for CBC News, reports that a lawyer and veteran representing former cadets in a class-action lawsuit says the Canadian cadet program, run by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), is grappling with the same sexual misconduct issues as the military. Michael Blois, a partner at the Toronto personal injury law firm Diamond & Diamond, said plaintiffs have described a culture in the cadet program that includes grooming, rampant sexual harassment and innuendo, and a lack of follow-up within units and summer camps when cadets have raised sexual misconduct claims with superiors. Blois and his colleagues filed a $300 million class-action lawsuit last year. In the statement of claim, they said the federal government has failed when it comes to "systemic sexual assault, sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination" in the cadet program. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Cadets, who are aged 12 to 18, are not CAF members but CAF members supervise the program. The most senior cadet instructors are commissioned officers in the military's reserve force, and CAF members often participate in cadet training, especially at summer camps. The Canadian Cadet Organizations (CCO) is the body formally responsible for the cadet program. "If you have a sexualized, discriminatory environment within the Canadian Forces, without a doubt it's going to leak into the cadet organization," Blois told CBC News. "There is overlap between some members of the Canadian Forces and cadet units, either as volunteers or within the structure of the training . . . especially at the summertime in the different camps." The most recent statistics DND would provide are from a 2020 military police report, which shows there were 257 "founded" incidents of sexual abuse in cadet units and camps over a four-year period from 2016 to 2019. "Founded" means law enforcement had enough evidence to substantiate that the incidents occurred. Of the 257 incidents, military police classified 215 as sexual assaults, 19 as sexual offences against children and 23 as other sexual-related offences. The cadet program's purpose is to "help develop skills that will help youth transition into adulthood," the Department of National Defence (DND) says on its website CAF said in response to CBC inquiries that the cadet program consists of 46,000 youth and over 8,800 military and civilian members. Approximately 16,000 cadets attended summer cadet training centres in 2019, but in-person summer training was cancelled due to the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Around 3,000 cadets attended summer training centres in 2022, CAF said. The cadet program is not meant to streamline cadets into the military. But Blois, a Canadian Army veteran who spent 11 years in the CAF, said sexual misconduct issues in the cadet program may deter cadets from pursuing a military career. "If they are a victim, that's probably steered them away, and that's a real shame," he said. The military is struggling to meet its recruiting targets. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre estimates the CAF is short 10,000 regular force members. Several high-ranking officers in the military are facing allegations of sexual misconduct, and a report last year from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour called for changes in the CAF's culture and practices to address the issue. Blois said sexual misconduct in the cadets won't improve until the CAF makes changes. "Without a wholesale culture change in that regard, there's going to be no change really for the cadets," he said. Hilary Lockhart, a representative plaintiff in the class action, alleges a cadet instructor groomed her after she joined the cadets in 2008 at age 14. The class-action statement of claim said Lockhart reported the instructor's behaviour to a superior, but the cadets took no further action. After Hilary's mother found explicit texts from the instructor on Hilary's phone, she reported them to the police. Police later charged the instructor, who was convicted. "I never thought that the cadets program would be the worst thing to ever happen to me and my family," Lockhart said in a news conference last year, which was posted to YouTube. Lockhart called for more transparency on sexual misconduct in the cadets. "The fact that this dark history in the program is not divulged to parents is extremely negligent, and, quite frankly, irresponsible," she said. A DND spokesperson said it cannot comment on ongoing litigation. Sexual misconduct 'not tolerated' -- CAF spokesperson Maj. Jenn Jackson, the senior public affairs officer for the cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers, said the protection, safety and welfare of cadets is the program's top priority. "We do not tolerate sexual misconduct involving cadets, their instructors, or anyone involved in the cadet program, and this includes not only unwanted physical contact, but also extends to comments, behaviours, all sexual contact involving minors and written text," Jackson said in an email statement. Jackson said any potential criminal offence is reported to police and the alleged offender is suspended from cadet activities pending the outcome. "Cadets are taught that unwanted sexual contact of any kind is unacceptable, and they are encouraged to report any incidents regardless of whether the offender is a peer or superior," Jackson said. "Counselling, chaplain, police, instructors and other resources are available to cadets who have experienced unwanted sexual touching." Jackson added that adults working with cadets are required to go through a number of screening processes -- including a police records check -- every five years. The program also requires that adults go through training to identify and address grooming and luring behaviour, sexual harassment and discriminatory behaviour. Expert says hierarchical institutions vulnerable to abuse Dr. Michael Seto, a psychologist and Forensic Research Director at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare Group, said he's not surprised at the amount of sexual misconduct in the cadets. Seto compared the problem with reports about the culture in junior hockey and child sexual abuse controversies in certain religious organizations. Seto said that institutions with strong hierarchies ⁠-- including adult supervision of children ⁠-- can be prone to sexual abuse. "We know that when there's those kinds of hierarchies in place, it can potentially increase the likelihood of this kind of behaviour," Seto told CBC News. Victims and witnesses may also be discouraged from reporting sexual misconduct, Seto said. "If they disclose it, they might be less likely to be believed. They ⁠-- quite rightly ⁠-- might believe that there's repercussions if they do or say anything," he said. Seto said there are ways the cadet program could address the issue. They include establishing clear and accessible reporting processes with appropriate follow-up action, better bystander training and a system that ensures more than one adult is present with cadets at all times. Blois said he hopes change will start with the cadet leadership. "I think that clouds a lot of these young cadets views on what they should do or what's appropriate, what's right or what's wrong," he said. "Because the person who's either assaulting them or grooming them . . . is an authority figure that they look up to and are taught is an ethical, reasonable, right person because of their rank or their position." [GN] CAR TOYS INC: Karroll Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Karroll, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. CAR TOYS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 6:23-cv-00223-DCC (D.S.C., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant challenging the Defendant's violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"). The Plaintiff was terminated on December 5, 2022 when the Wireless Advocates, LLC ("Wireless Advocates") surprisingly ceased all operations. Dan Brettler, CEO of Wireless Advocates and Car Toys, held a conference call on or about December 5, 2022, in which he announced that all employees of Wireless Advocates were terminated, effective immediately. The Plaintiff, like approximately 1800 other Wireless Advocates employees, received this communication on December 5, 2022, stating that he was being laid off, effective immediately. Car Toys did not give 60 days advance written notice to the terminated employees, as required by the federal WARN Act. Wireless Advocates and Car Toys amount to a single employer for purposes of the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Wireless Advocates, LLC prior to his termination on December 5, 2022. The Defendant jointly maintained, owned, and operated multiple kiosks throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Kirkpatrick Morgan, Esq. Charles T. Slaughter, Esq. MORGAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC 135 East Main Street Post Office Box 1256 (29071) Lexington, SC 29072 Phone: (803) 359-6194 Facsimile: (803) 957-4584 Email: km@morganlitigation.com chuck@morganlitigation.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Phone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jsimpson@langstonlott.com CODY ASKINS: Elzen TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Van Elzen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cody Askins LLC, 8 Percent Nation LLC, Cody Askins, Case No. 1:22-cv-00840 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Jan. 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00037-JAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cody Askins -- https://codyaskins.com/ -- covers training for insurance agents and many different sales-related topics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28 Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com The Defendants are represented by: Bart T. Murphy, Esq. ICE MILLER, LLP 2300 Cabot Dr-Ste 455 Lisle, IL 60532 Phone: (630) 955-6392 Fax: (630) 955-0662 Email: bart.murphy@icemiller.com CORRECTIONS CORP: Tardy's Bid to Intervene in Grae Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denies Eddie Tardy's motions to intervene in the case, NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, et al., Plaintiffs v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, nka CoreCivic; DAMON T. HININGER; DAVID M. GARFINKLE; TODD J. MULLENGER; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Defendants-Appellees, MARIE NEWBY, Intervenor-Appellant, EDDIE TARDY, Proposed Intervenor, Case No. 22-5312 (6th Cir.). What started as a securities-fraud action against Corrections Corporation of America (now known as CoreCivic) has turned into a quest for documents. Tardy seeks to intervene and unseal documents that CoreCivic produced during discovery. CoreCivic operates private prisons. Years ago, the company's stockholders brought a class action alleging securities fraud. The company settled that suit, and the district court entered final judgment. The case remained dormant until Marie Newby moved to intervene three months later. Newby believed that documents produced in the securities action would help establish CoreCivic's responsibility for the death of her son in one of its prisons. The district court unsealed most, but not all, of the documents Newby sought. She appealed, but before the Sixth Circuit could decide her case, she settled with CoreCivic and moved to voluntarily dismiss her appeal. At the same time, Tardy moved to intervene in this appeal, seeking permission to carry on in Newby's stead. Like Newby, Tardy had a son who died in a CoreCivic prison. But unlike Newby, Tardy waived any claim that the denial of documents in the action hinders his ability to litigate his separate suit against CoreCivic for the death of his son. In fact, at oral argument, Tardy conceded that he hasn't suffered any adverse effects from the denial of documents. Instead, he seeks to vindicate the public's right of access to judicial records. The Sixth Circuit must decide whether Tardy has standing to intervene on the public's behalf, having repeatedly disclaimed any need for the documents himself. It finds that a chorus of precedent all sings the same tune: to have standing, litigants must have suffered adverse effects from the denial of information. That requirement dooms Tardy's case, the Sixth Circuit finds. At oral argument, Tardy told the Court he had not suffered any adverse effects. In fact, he admitted that if he were required to allege an adverse effect, he would lose. The Sixth Circuit takes him at his word. Therefore, he does not have standing to intervene in this appeal. Tardy contends that the Sixth Circuit should unseal the documents even if he doesn't have standing. In making this request, he invokes the Sixth Circuit's caselaw permitting a court to sua sponte consider whether to unseal documents. In Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 306-07 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit holds that a court's obligation to keep its records open for public inspection is not conditioned on an objection from anybody. The Sixth Circuit holds that Tardy misapplies that caselaw. It may unseal documents on its own motion during an ongoing case. But the underlying case is no longer ongoing, and the Sixth Circuit has never held that courts possess the power to unseal documents outside a justiciable case or controversy. That would undermine the separation-of-powers principles that standing protects. Accordingly, Tardy's motions to intervene and file a reply brief are denied. Newby's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uek2xze from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Daniel A. Horwitz -- daniel@horwitz.law -- HORWITZ LAW, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant Marie Newby and proposed intervenor Eddie Tardy. Roman Martinez -- roman.martinez@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for the Appellees. ON BRIEF AND MOTIONS: Daniel A. Horwitz, HORWITZ LAW, PLLC, Melissa K. Dix -- melissa@horwitz.law -- Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant Marie Newby and proposed intervenor Eddie Tardy. ON APPELLEE BRIEF: Brian T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Eric C. Pettis -- eric.pettis@lw.com -- Michael A. Galdes -- michael.galdes@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Los Angeles, California, Steven A. Riley -- sriley@rjfirm.com -- Milton S. McGee, III, RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellees. Paul R. McAdoo, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. CYTODYN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over COVID Drug Viability -------------------------------------------------------------- Cytodyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that in March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District court for the Western District of Washington against the company and certain former officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the viability of their drug "leronlimab" as a potential treatment for COVID-19. On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021. On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the March 17, 2021 lawsuit. On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May 17, 2021. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the company's CD10 and CD12 clinical trials and its HIV BLA. The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the company's common stock purportedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names the same defendants, and asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint. Cytodyn Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in Washington. DANGO PRODUCTS: Kaye Sues Over Automated Telephonic Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Kaye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANGO PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00206-NC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to his cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida, in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendant utilized an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" to transmit the subject text messages to the Plaintiff's Number because such messages were sent from telephone numbers used to message consumers en masse; because Defendant's dialing equipment includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making numerous calls or texts simultaneously; and because the hardware and software used by the Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to both select numbers to be dialed and to dial such numbers in an automated fashion. Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he receives a text message, each telephonic sales call by or on behalf of Defendant to the Plaintiff's Number invaded the Plaintiff's privacy and intruded upon Plaintiff's seclusion upon receipt. The Plaintiff has never provided his prior "prior express written consent" to Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant's behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to the Number by means of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" within the meaning of the FTSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida. Dango Products, LLC is a retailer of wallets and wallet accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com DEN-TEX CENTRAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Barranco Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA BARRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEN-TEX CENTRAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05010-PKH (W.D. Ark., January 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Barranco was employed as an hourly-paid employee within the three years relevant to this lawsuit at Defendant Denny's restaurant in Bentonville, Arkansas. Den-Tex Central, Inc. owns and operates Denny's diner-style restaurants at various locations in Arkansas, including the location in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stewart Whaley, Esq. WH LAW | WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law stewart@wh.law DR. BERG HOLDINGS: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC doing business as: Dr. Berg Nutritionals, Case No. 3:23-cv-00084-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract. Dr. Berg Holdings, LLC doing business as Dr. Berg Nutritionals -- https://www.drberg.com/ -- is a health educator specializing in weight loss through nutritional and natural methods such as the keto diet plan and intermittent fasting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: (858) 414-7465 Fax: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Sues to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Kathy Landis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00005-M (E.D.N.C., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought to recover overtime pay from the Defendants in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff work more than 40 hours in a workweek but are not paid an overtime premium for their overtime hours. As a result of the Defendants' willful and illegal pay practices, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were deprived of overtime compensation for their hours worked in violation of federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Medical Management Nurse I from April 2021 to June 2022, where she worked remotely from her home in Craven County, North Carolina. Elevance Health, Inc. f/k/a Anthem, Inc. is a multi-line health insurance company that provides managed care programs and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Barrett, Esq. Joshua M. Krasner, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC 5 West Hargett St., Suite 910 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 999-2799 Email: wbarrett@barrettlawoffices.com jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com ccoleman@nka.com ELON PROPERTY: $500K Class Deal in Yost Suit Wins Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICIA YOST, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY-LEXFORD POOLS 1/3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and ELON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business together as "Elon Property Management," and REAL PAY, INC., and Illinois corporation Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-21-1520 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and the Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Approval of Class Representative Service Award. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Elon Property Management Company-Lexford Pools 1/3, LLC and Elon Property Management, LLC (collectively, "Elon") on June 18, 2021, seeking class-wide relief, inter alia, for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1679 et seq., commonly known as the "Federal Credit Repair Organizations Act" ("CROA" or the "Act"). The suit concerns credit amelioration fees charged to Elon tenants as part of their rent payments. The Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, adding Real Pay, Inc., Elon's "business partner," as a Defendant. However, Real Pay was never served. The Plaintiff alleges that it was the policy and practice of the Defendants to provide credit repair services subject to CROA without providing the written disclosures mandated by 15 U.S.C. Section 1679c before collecting monies for credit repair services, and to have consumers enter into contracts for credit repair services without the mandated contract terms and provisions required under 15 U.S.C. Section 1679d and e. Further, the Defendants allegedly made false statements with respect to a tradeline to a consumer reporting agency in contravention of 15 U.S.C. Section 1679b(a)(1) (A). Both the initial Complaint and the Amended Complaint contain three counts: violation of the Act (Count 1); declaratory and injunctive relief (Count 2); and unjust enrichment (Count 3). On July 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an "Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement," seeking, inter alia, preliminary certification and approval of the proposed class action settlement. By Order of July 11, 2022, Judge Catherine C. Blake, to whom the case was then assigned, granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and directed notice to be issued to the class members. That Order was subsequently amended by Order of July 29, 2022, providing for short form class notice and enlargement of time to complete notice mail-out. In addition, a class action fairness hearing was scheduled for Jan. 13, 2023. Now pending is the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. Also pending is the "Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Approval of Class Representative Service Award." No objections were lodged to the motions. And, the class action fairness hearing was held on Jan. 13, 2023, as scheduled. Ms. Yost was present. But, as the record reflects, no interested parties or members of the public appeared at the hearing. The Settlement Agreement defines the "Settlement Class" as "all persons in the United States who, in the four (4) years preceding the filing of the instant Action, were Elon's tenants and paid Rental Payment Reporting Fees directly to Elon on their own behalf." Therefore, the Class pertains to persons who were tenants from June 18, 2017, to June 18, 2021. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay a total of $500,000. This represents the aggregate of "Rent Credit to Current Tenant Class Members"; the "Settlement Checks to Former and Post-Approval Former Tenants"; the "Class Representative Service Award"; the "Attorney's Fees and Expense Award"; and the "Settlement Administration Fee." To the extent that any funds remain, funds will revert to Elon via check delivered to Elon by the American Legal Claim Services, LLC. Significantly, Elon has agreed to cease the practice of collecting fees from tenants with respect to rental payment reporting. As noted, pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, as subsequently amended on July 29, 2022, the Court approved the form of the notices to the Settlement Class and further directed the Settlement Administrator to mail notices by first class mail to class members at their last known address. On July 21, 2022, the Settlement Administrator received the mailing list from the counsel for the Defendants containing 22,046 records with street addresses, and the subclass of each class member: current tenant or former tenant. A total of 320 duplicates were identified and, after the duplicates were removed, the final Class List contained 21,726 class members. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Settlement Administrator mailed the postcard notice to 21,726 class members. As of Dec. 26, 2022, the Settlement Administrator received 40 timely requests for exclusion. Notably, however, no objections to the settlement were received. Having reviewed the Motion, the Settlement Agreement, the affidavits of class counsel, and all documents filed in connection with the proposed settlement, Judge Hollander is persuaded that the requirements of Fed R. Civ. P. 23(e), Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied. Therefore, she certifies the proposed class, and as it is described in the Settlement Agreement. For these reasons, and because no objections have been made, Judge Hollander grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. Next, Judge Hollander considers the Fee Motion, which includes a request for a service award for the named Plaintiff. The Class counsel has asked for approval of an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $166,650, plus expenses in the amount of $750. The Settlement Fund is valued at $500,000. Thus, counsel's fee request of $166,650 is equal to 33% of the recovery. The request is uncontested by the Defendants. And, no class members have objected. Judge Hollander grants the Fee Motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $166,650 and expenses in the amount of $7,500, and for a service award of $5,000 to Ms. Yost. In her view, the counsel's requested fee award and the proposed service award for the Plaintiff are reasonable. These amounts will be paid by the Defendants from the Settlement Fund, in addition to the other settlement benefits. An Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n99tdh4 from Leagle.com. ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Fire -------------------------------------------------------------- Zoe McDonald of Birminghamwatch.org reports a pair of Trussville residents have filed a lawsuit over the landfill fire that's been burning for almost two months near Moody. The suit alleges, among other claims, the owners and operators of Environmental Landfill Inc. have been negligent and calls for compensatory and punitive damages. Attorney Mark Ekonen filed the lawsuit December 21, 2022 in St. Clair Circuit Court on behalf of Candice Jackson and Emmanuel Gomes. The complaint outlines how the ongoing fire and smoke has affected the plaintiffs' families. It's caused medical issues and driven them to purchase air purifiers and cleaning equipment to combat the smoke entering their homes. Gomes' two children, who suffer from asthmatic issues, have had severe asthma symptoms since the fire started, according to the suit. Ekonen has also been dealing with the effects of the fire firsthand. "I'm not just the attorney that filed the lawsuit. I also live about a mile away from the landfill," Ekonen said. "So we became aware of the smoke and the fire very early on." The complaint cites years of inspections and violations from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management showing that the agency had found unauthorized waste like tires, power poles, construction debris and scrap metal on the property. Many of the documents also note the site's heightened fire hazard risk. Responses from the landfill operators showed that they took steps to remove unauthorized waste from the property in 2013 and again in 2017. In a 2018 response, ADEM said the site met the criteria for an unauthorized solid waste dump and asked for a closure plan, but the site continued operating. After another inspection in 2020, ADEM documents show that the owners removed unauthorized waste twice in 2021. However, in the last inspection before the fire started -- in August 2022 -- the inspector wrote that, while he didn't see any unauthorized waste, he was informed by one of the operators, Charlie Rich, that unauthorized waste was buried in several areas on the property and that he planned to have it remediated over the next 18 months. Four months later, the fire began. The complaint says that the smoke "frequently smells of chemicals" due to the buried unauthorized waste and that an air quality monitor placed near the site has registered unhealthy-to-hazardous levels of particulates. When contacted at the number associated with Environmental Landfill Inc., the person who answered said he was unable to comment at this time. The lawsuit seeks class action status. The proposed class includes owners and occupants of property within a 5-mile radius of the landfill. The complaint estimates there could be hundreds of people in the class. Ekonen says there could be even more. "It's going to be significantly more than hundreds, I think, when all is said and done, " Ekonen said. The fire continues to burn. The St. Clair County Commission issued an emergency declaration on January 3, 2023 and is in the process of evaluating bids from private companies that say they will be able to extinguish the fire. Ekonen says that not much about the situation has changed since he first filed the complaint. "The people that are surrounding the landfill have been dealing with something that they never expected they would have to deal with," Ekonen said. "Hopefully through the efforts of the county, they can get the fire put out sooner rather than later. And everybody in this area can start moving beyond having to deal with the smoke and the soot and all that on a daily basis and start putting their lives together," Ekonen said. [GN] ESS TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ESS Tech Inc. GWH between August 11, 2022 and December 7, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 13, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased ESS Tech securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the ESS Tech class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10877 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the purported agreement with Energy Storage Industries Asia Pacific ("ESI") was in fact an undisclosed related party transaction because ESI was a de-facto subsidiary of ESS masquerading as third-party client; (2) ESS misled investors with their partnership announcement to signal business success to investors; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the ESS Tech class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10877 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FCTI INC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Polvay Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROME POLVAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. FCTI, Inc., and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-04315-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its favor on all claims asserted by the Plaintiff Jerome Polvay in the First Amended Complaint. FCTI provides ATM network and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wbEtty at no extra charge.[CC] FEGHALI FOODS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feghali Foods. The case is styled as Isaac Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Feghali Foods, Case No. BCV-23-100130 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 17, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Feghali Foods -- http://feghalifoods.com/-- offers food and beverage services.[BN] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Trivedi v. General Electric Company et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10630, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston, on January 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10067 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. General Electric Company is a globally diversified technology and financial services company. The Company's products and services include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, and household appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer financing, and industrial products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Feb. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DURWIN HAMPTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00250-RAW (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. White entered a Scheduling order as follows: Plaintiff to file Class Certification February 24, 2023 Motion: Plaintiff to disclose any Expert Reports: February 24, 2023 GM's Response to Plaintiff's Class April 25, 2023 Certification Motion: GM to disclose any Expert Reports: April 25, 2023 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of June 7, 2023 Class Certification Motion: Plaintiffs to disclose any Expert June 7, 2023 Rebuttal Reports: Deadline for filing Dispositive 60 days after Motions: ruling on Class Certification Deadline for Objections to Dispositive 120 days after Motions: ruling on Class Certification General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iKvKM8 at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by Jan. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGUEZ HURRY, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00673-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed on January 11, 2023: -- The Defendant shall file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion on or before January 27, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a reply to the Defendant's response on or before February 3, 2023. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XvMK7q at no extra charge.[CC] GENWORTH LIFE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in McMillan ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATSY H. MCMILLAN, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00091-MC (D. Or.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend deadlines for class certification briefing as follows: The parties' proposed new deadlines are as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Plaintiff's Motion for Class Jan. 17, 2023 Jan. 31, 2023 Certification and any Class Certification Expert Report Defendant's Opposition to Mar.20, 2023 Apr. 3, 2023 Motion for Class Certification and any Class Certification Expert Report Plaintiff's Reply in support May 22, 2023 Jun. 5, 2023 of Motion for Class Certification and any Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Report The remaining deadlines in this case flow from the deadline for class members to opt out of any certified class; thus, the parties' requested extension does not require any further changes to the existing deadlines, settings, or schedules. Genworth Life is a stock life insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iF1Tohat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGERMAN DAHAB 707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503)-228-6474 Facsimile: (503) 228-2556 E-mail: david@sugermandahab.com nadia@sugermandahab.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. David A. Hickey, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street Ste. 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816-561-6500 Facsimile: 816-561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher T. Carson, Esq. KILMER VOORHEES & LAURICK, PC 2701 NW Vaughn St., Suite 780 Portland, OR 97210 Telephone: (503) 224-0055 E-mail: ccarson@kilmerlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Gennardo, Esq. Thomas A. Evans, Esq. Kathy J. Huang, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10016-1387 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 Facsimile: (212) 210-9444 E-mail: patrick.gennardo@alston.com tom.evans@alston.com kathy.huang@alston.com GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Junked --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY W. ALEXANDER, ET AL. v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-03166-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Kay entered an order denying the motion to strike. The Court said, "After reviewing the parties' arguments and the relevant case law, we find it would a better practice to assess the propriety of the class allegations through a motion for class certification after discovery has occurred rather than on the current motion to strike. Due to the foregoing, we find that it is too early in the litigation to determine the sufficiency of the class allegations. Thus, the motion to strike is denied." The action is a putative class action against defendant GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company for breach of insurance agreement and violation of Louisiana Insurance Code Section 22:1892. In their third amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that defendant engaged in "a corporate pattern and practice of improper claims adjusting and payment." Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that defendant's actions caused defendant's Louisiana policyholders (plaintiffs and putative class members) to receive less in payment on their property insurance claims than defendant was obligated to pay or than plaintiffs and the putative class members were entitled to receive. The Plaintiffs define the putative class as: "All property insurance policyholders of GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY in the State of LOUISIANA who, between August 31, 2019 and the present made a claim and received a loss payment from Defendant for damage to their insured property, which claim included one or more of the following specified material components: plywood, drywall, drip edge and roofing felt." The Defendant filed the instant motion to strike the class allegations in plaintiffs' third amended complaint. According to the defendant, plaintiff cannot satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement for class certification. In their opposition, the plaintiffs disagree and urge this court to allow the parties to conduct discovery instead of granting the motion to strike at "this early stage of the proceedings." The Defendant replies that "courts can and do strike class allegations on the pleadings where it is apparent from the pleadings that a class cannot be certified." Geovera Specialty offers property and casualty insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xkv5Qr at no extra charge.[CC] GGG DEMOLITION: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GGG Demolition, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Irving Garcia, on behalf of other member of the general public similarly situated v. GGG Demolition, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00333133-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 17, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." GGG Demolition, Inc. -- http://gggdemo.com/-- provides full-service demolition and hazardous waste remediation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com GO FLORIDA: Does Not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moore Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MOORE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GO FLORIDA INVESTMENTS INC., d/b/a Roelens Vacation Rentals and Management, Roelens Vacations, and KOEN ROELENS, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017 (M.D. Fla., January 10, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation and a premium for all hours worked over 40 each week. Plaintiff Moore worked for Defendants beginning July 2021 as an executive assistant and then approximately in February 2022 under title of "Integrator" until her separation from her employment on November 16, 2022. Go Florida Investments Inc. is a vacation home rental agency in Cape Coral, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com GOFUND ADVANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Haymount RICO Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE PC, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOFUND ADVANCE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1245 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. Haymount and its principal Robert A. Clinton Jr. have moved to certify a class of all persons nationwide who since 2018 received funding from one or more of Defendants pursuant to a "merchant cash advance" ("MCA") agreement with an effective interest rate exceeding 25%. Haymount is a primary and urgent care facility in North Carolina owned by Dr. Clinton. The individual and corporate Defendants are in the merchant cash advance business. That business, the Defendants assert, provides cash-starved small businesses such as Haymount (which received over $2.5 million in funding pursuant to several MCA agreements) with necessary cash by purchasing a share of those businesses' future revenues for a discount. The Plaintiffs characterize the Defendants' business differently, alleging that the latter employ high-pressure sales tactics to get small businesses to sign up for what are in effect very high-interest loans made in violation of applicable state laws setting maximum interest rates. Haymount and Dr. Clinton commenced the suit in February 2022, alleging various claims including one under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. After the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged facts supporting the RICO claim under two separate theories. In support of one theory, the Plaintiffs alleged that the MCA agreements operated not as purchases of future revenues but as loans with interest rates more than twice as high as permitted under New York's anti-usury laws -- which, if that law were applicable, would render collection on them unlawful under RICO. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged a pattern of federal wire fraud violations based on GoFund Advance's alleged use of misleading names to evade blocks and withdraw funds from Haymount's bank account without authorization. The Plaintiffs' first RICO theory -- that collection under the MCA agreements constituted the collection of unlawful debt -- turns necessarily on showing that the MCA agreements in fact constituted unlawful debt under some state's usury laws. In their initial briefing on the subject, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants assumed the relevant state's law was New York's, and after the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the choice-of-law question, the Defendants took the position that New York law applied by virtue of a New York choice-of-law provision included in each of the relevant MCA agreements, while the Plaintiffs did not dispute, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, that New York law applied. In its Opinion and Order denying in large part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court therefore assumed, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that that New York law applied to the question of whether the MCA agreements qualify as usurious, both because the parties had so agreed and because the MCA agreements at issue expressly choose that New York law will govern their terms. This statement, however, was made in the context of a motion to dismiss. But things became more complicated after defendants subsequently moved to strike the class allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that because of class action waiver clauses included in the MCA agreements, the Plaintiffs' case could not proceed as a class action. The Court denied that motion, reasoning that if the Plaintiffs succeeded in showing that the MCA agreements would be considered usurious loans under New York law, then New York law would also treat them as totally void and unenforceable, including as to the class action waiver provisions. In their papers, the Defendants devoted a single paragraph to an argument that the Court should enforce the class action waiver provisions because it had already assumed, in deciding their motion to dismiss, that the choice-of-law provision was enforceable. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the parties had assumed at the pleading stage that New York law applied, that the Defendants had consented to its application as to the lead Plaintiffs, and that there was at least some basis to think an independent choice-of-law analysis might result in the application of New York law in any event, given allegations that the defendants operated from New York. However, the Court noted that, in order to certify a class, the Plaintiffs would need to demonstrate that that the questions of whether or not the MCA agreements are void and whether the MCA agreements' class action waiver provisions can be enforced against them are capable of class-wide resolution. When the Plaintiffs moved for class certification, they argued that their first RICO theory -- that the Defendants were engaged in the collection on usurious loans in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(C) -- could be determined on a class-wide basis. They did not make any argument for class certification based on their second RICO theory involving a pattern of alleged wire fraud or any other theory. After hearing argument on the Plaintiffs' motion on Dec. 6, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion by bottom-line order on Dec. 26, 2022, with Judge Rakoff's Opinion to follow. Judge Rakoff explains that a plaintiff seeking to certify a class must show that the proposed class complies with each of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) (that piecemeal litigation would create a risk of inconsistent verdicts, that the defendant has acted toward the class in a generally applicable way such that class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief would be appropriate, or that common questions of law or fact predominate over other questions). As to Rule 23(a) (2)'s requirement of common legal or factual questions, what matters to class certification is the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." However, even a single common question will do. As it turns out, Judge Rakoff finds that the Plaintiffs cannot meet this commonality requirement. He says although the Plaintiffs pose several putatively common questions as to which class litigation could supposedly furnish common answers, these questions all boil down to, are part of, or follow from a single question: do the Defendants' MCA agreements operate as unlawfully usurious loans? Judge Rakoff holds that that question turns necessarily on state usury law. In the case, Haymount -- itself a North Carolina-based company -- seeks to certify a nationwide class of entities that have received funding from defendants pursuant to MCA agreements. That necessarily raises the question of whether one or several states' usury laws applies to individual putative class members' claims. Judge Rakoff finds that the MCA Agreements' Choice-of-Law Provisions do not eliminate the need for an individualized choice-of-law analysis. The apparent impossibility of conducting a collective choice-of-law analysis as to all class members that would result in the application of a single state's usury laws. He also finds that individualized choice-of-aw analyses preclude class certification. The single putatively common question raised by the Plaintiffs (albeit in multiple components or variations) -- whether the MCA agreements offered by defendants are unlawful debts under state usury laws -- necessarily turns on individualized choice-of-law analyses that will vary substantially state to state and putative class member to putative class member. Nor is there any way to narrow the proposed class to address this problem, since the lead Plaintiffs are North Carolina-based and the Plaintiffs have made no showing that they can meet Rule 23's requirements with respect to a North Carolina-based class of borrowers or can adequately represent and are typical of a class of New York-based borrowers. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have failed to show that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. Judge Rakoff denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The Clerk is directed to close the motion on the docket. As stated in the Court's Dec. 29, 2022 bottom-line order and pursuant to the parties' Case Management Plan, any summary judgment motions will be due on Feb. 12, 2023, with opposing papers due Feb. 27, 2023, and reply papers due March 6, 2023. A final pre-trial conference and argument on summary judgment motions will be held on March 15, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33sx93by from Leagle.com. HOMEAGLOW INC: Hovis Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIE HOVIS, an individual; GENARO MENDOZA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOMEAGLOW, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00048618-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00045-JM-WVG to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, eight of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, one for breach of contract, and another one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Homeaglow Inc. is a house cleaning service provider in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. Spurchise, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 Facsimile: (212) 832-2719 E-mail: aspurchise@littler.com - and - Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: aly@littler.com - and - Lisa Lin Garcia, Esq. Garrick Y. Chan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: llgarcia@littler.com gchan@littler.com HOUSING WORKS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. HOUSING WORKS CANNABIS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00286 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Housing Works provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Hwcannabis.co (hereinafter "Hwcannabis.co" or "the website"). The Defendant' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. Housing Works Store provides to the public important and enjoyable goods including cannabis products which are available for sale at the Store location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com HP INC: Court Dismisses Freund Class Suit With Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY FREUND, et al., Plaintiffs v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03794-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants HP's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs Gary Freund and Wayne McMath bring the class action lawsuit against HP, asserting assert common law claims and claims under California and Minnesota consumer protection laws based on allegations that HP's all-in-one printers will not perform certain functions that do not require ink when the devices have low or empty ink cartridges. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and California and Minnesota subclasses of consumers who purchased HP all-in-one printers. As alleged in the complaint, HP designs, manufactures, and sells all-in-one printers. Its all-in-one printers are marketed and sold as having three core functions: printing, copying, and scanning. Some of these all-in-one printers also have a faxing feature. HP advertises that its all-in-one printers are convenient because users do not have to buy a separate device for each task. HP all-in-one printers are manufactured, packaged, marketed, and sold to consumers in a manner that requires the device to contain ink to scan or fax documents. But it does not disclose to consumers that the devices will not scan or fax documents if the ink cartridges are depleted. The Plaintiffs purchased an HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless Color Printer and HP Deskjet 2655 All-in-One Compact Printer, respectively. HP represented that the devices would be able to scan and did not include qualifying language that such features would not work if the ink cartridge levels were low or depleted. The devices do not function as a scanner if the ink cartridges are low or empty. Freund and McMath would not have purchased their devices or would not have paid as much for them had they known that they would have to maintain ink the devices to scan documents. They may purchase the HP all-in-one printers again in the future should HP continue to advertise the devices as "all-in-one," as they would think it meant HP manufactured the devices to make them scan even when the ink is low or depleted. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on June 27, 2022. The Complaint asserts claims for (1) negligent misrepresentation; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of express warranty under Cal. Com. Code Section 2313; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (5) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; (6) breach of express warranty under Minn. Stat. Section 336.2-313; (7) violation of Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("MDTPA"); (8) violations of Minnesota's False Advertising Law ("MSFAA"). Now before the Court is HP's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose. HP has replied in support. Judge Freeman held a hearing on the motion on Jan. 5, 2023. The Plaintiffs assert five claims that involve fraud or fraudulent representations: negligent misrepresentation and violations of the UCL; FAL; MDTPA; and MFSAA. HP asserts, and the Plaintiffs do not dispute, that these claims are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims may be premised on either omissions or affirmative misrepresentations. It is unclear from the complaint whether they seek to allege an omission-based or affirmative- misrepresentation-based theory of fraud. The Plaintiffs argue in their briefing that they seek to proceed on both theories. Judge Freeman finds the Plaintiffs' allegations deficient under either theory. She says the Plaintiffs have not pled facts showing that HP omitted facts it had a duty to disclose. She also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are deficient because they do not identify whether the alleged defects are occurring within the warranty period or otherwise implicate a safety concern. They have therefore failed to plead an omission to support their fraud-based claims. HP argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify the alleged defect with the requisite particularity. The Plaintiffs respond that their allegations are sufficient because they "do not merely identify the consequences of the alleged defect, nor are they notably silent on identifying the defect that causes such consequences. Judge Freeman agrees with HP that the Plaintiffs have not identified the alleged design defect with the requisite particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b). For the reasons, the Plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and violations of the UCL; FAL; MDTPA; and MFSAA (Counts 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8) are dismissed with leave to amend. HP argues that the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim should also be dismissed because it is barred by the economic loss rule. The Plaintiffs respond that the economic loss doctrine does not bar their negligent misrepresentation claim because their claim sounds in fraud. HP replies that the Plaintiffs' negligent representation claim is barred here because it is premised on the same allegations as their breach of warranty claims. Judge Freeman holds that In In re Big Heart Pet Brands Litigation, the Court adopted an approach that "evaluates whether the allegations that support a negligent misrepresentation claim closely parallel a concurrent breach of contract claim so that the negligent misrepresentation claim is in actuality a breach of contract claim in disguise." The Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim and breach of warranty claims rely on substantially similar allegations: the Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages because HP advertised its devices as all-in-one printers and did not disclose that those devices would not scan or fax when they are low or out of ink. Judge Freeman, therefore, finds that the Plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation should be dismissed under the economic loss rule. The Plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation (Count 1) is therefore dismissed with lave to amend on this independent basis. HP also argues that the Plaintiffs breach-of-express-warranty claims should be dismissed because such claims apply to manufacturing defects, not design defects, and the Plaintiffs have alleged only a design defect. The Plaintiffs respond that they need discovery to determine whether the defect is a design or manufacturing defect. Judge Freeman determines that the Plaintiffs' breach-of-express-warranty claims are inadequately pled because they do not allege any facts to support that the alleged defect is a manufacturing defect and they do not identify the specific and unequivocal written statements comprising the alleged warranties. The Plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claims (Counts 3 and 6) are therefore dismissed with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs seek to amend their allegations such that they include warranties that cover manufacturing defects, they should include factual allegations supporting any claims of manufacturing defects. HP argues that the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (2020), because they have not alleged that they lack an adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiffs respond that their claims for equitable restitution should not be dismissed because they are allowed to plead their claims for equitable relief in the alternative to their claims for legal relief. Judge Freeman finds that Plaintiffs must plead facts as to why their claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty provide inadequate remedies at law. Their claims for equitable restitution for unjust enrichment and violations of the UCL, FAL, MDTPA, MFSAA are therefore dismissed with leave to amend. She also finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an inadequate remedy at law with regard to their requests for injunctive relief. HP then argues that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed because the Court is dismissing their underlying fraud-based claims and because they have alleged that the parties entered into an express contract. The Plaintiffs respond that their unjust enrichment claim should survive even the Court dismisses their fraud-based claims because the Court may construe the claim as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution that is plead in the alternative to their breach of contract claim. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. While she agrees with the Plaintiffs that they may plead their unjust enrichment claim in the alternative to their breach of warranty claims, they have failed to include the necessary alternative allegations. Their claim for unjust enrichment (Count 2) is therefore dismissed with leave to amend. Finally, the HP asserts that the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims for products they did not purchase. The Plaintiffs respond that they have standing to assert claims for products they did not purchase because they have alleged that "HP has made identical misrepresentations regarding all of the Products." Judge Freeman holds that the Complaint contains no factual allegations about the software or that it is the same in the non-purchased products. She also notes that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that either named Plaintiff purchased a device with fax capabilities, much less experienced the alleged defect when trying to use their device. To the extent the Plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims on behalf of purchasers of all-in-one printers with fax capabilities, their complaint will need to include factual allegations to suggest that the fax functionality suffers from a substantially similar defect. The Plaintiffs' claims are therefore dismissed with leave to amend to the extent they assert claims for non-purchased products. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman orders that HP's motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend, as to: a. the fraud-based claims (negligent misrepresentation and violations of the UCL; FAL; MDTPA; and MFSAA (Counts 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8)) for failure to state a claim; b. the claim for negligent misrepresentation for failure to state a claim; c. the claim for negligent misrepresentation (Count 1) for failure to state a claim; d. the claims seeking equitable restitution under the UCL, FAL, MDTPA, MFSAA for lack of equitable jurisdiction; and e. all claims for non-purchased all-in-one printers. The Plaintiffs may submit an amended complaint by no later than Feb. 10, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yy2psfs from Leagle.com. HYPER MICROSYSTEMS: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Scanning ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrique Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. HYPER MICROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Case No. 2023LA000041 (18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought to obtain statutory damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") as a result of the unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of the Defendant. As past and present employees of Defendant, Plaintiff and class members were required to provide it with their personalized biometric identifiers and the biometric information derived therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically, Defendant collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, Defendant uses this data to compare the future scans of their employees' fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock device scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee punching in to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the punch-clock fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees' presence. The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information. The State of Illinois recognized the value and importance of preserving people's biometric data when it passed the BIPA. Unlike other forms of personal identification, such as photo IDs or passwords, fingerprints are immutable aspects of our bodies. This makes them a promising source of future identification-related technology, particularly in our increasingly insecure technological world. If Defendant insists on collecting and storing their employees' fingerprints, Defendant must comply with the BIPA. This includes notifying employees the practice is taking place; informing employees of how the practice is implemented; obtaining written consent from the employees to collect and store their biometric data; maintaining their employees' biometric data in a sufficiently secure manner; and maintaining a publicly available disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and destroyed. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff and class members, none of these directives were followed. Accordingly, Plaintiff bring this action individually and on behalf of class members pursuant to obtain statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same fingerprint-storing practices as other of the Defendant's employees. The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that is registered to and doing business in the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Phone: (773) 831-8000 Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com JABIL CIRCUIT: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Devon Robertson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. JABIL CIRCUIT COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, ADECCO USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23CV409962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation and by failing to provide uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks. The Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees were routinely unable, and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for every shift they worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees were forced to continue working through their meal and rest breaks in order to assist Defendant's needs. Because of this, Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were unable to take their required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break to the Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees who were denied timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor Code. The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to pay all overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. Jabil Circuit Company is doing business in Sunnyvale California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com JORDAN SCHOOL: 10th Cir. Ruling in Title IX Class Suit Discussed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maricris Prendingue, Andrew F. Gann Jr and Farnaz Farkish, Thompson, McGuireWoods LLP of Lexology report that on Jan. 4, 2023, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made two important findings in a class-action case seeking to compel the creation of a girls-only football team for high-school girls. First, the 10th Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class certification as to alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, finding that the district court applied the wrong standard for commonality of interest. Second, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the policy supporting the existing co-ed program was not, on its face, discriminatory, because the girls were not deprived of an opportunity otherwise available to boys. This case -- Gordon v. Jordan School District, et al., No. 21-4044, 2023 WL 34105 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2023) -- concerned alleged violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. Subsection 1681(a), and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Concerning the issue of class certification for the Title IX claims, upon review of the district court's rulings, the 10th Circuit held that class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate when the proposed class shares a commonality of interest. A sufficient showing of commonality requires "identification of only a single issue shared by members of the class." The proposed class shared a commonality of interest because all the proposed members had an interest in proving a reasonable expectation of competition for girls' teams. The 10th Circuit held that when the district court focused on the differences in level of interest across schools, the district court was conducting a predominance inquiry -- not a commonality inquiry. A predominance inquiry is not required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Additionally, in response to the school districts' claim that any error in the district court's ruling was harmless, the 10th Circuit held that it was confining its review to the issue of denial of class certification. As support, the 10th Circuit cited U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that it would be improper for an appellate court to consider "the merits of the proposed class's claims until the district court had an opportunity to revisit certification." On the other hand, the district court had certified a class for the equal protection claim. In upholding the district court's finding that the co-ed program did not violate the equal protection clause, the 10th Circuit analyzed whether the policy was facially neutral, because "when a policy is facially neutral, courts only consider the existence of rational basis." The 10th Circuit held that the co-ed program was facially neutral because the school drew no distinction based on gender -- both girls and boys were allowed to play on the same football team. While an all-girls team might be advantageous because it would afford girls more playing time, the fact that girls were not discouraged from joining the co-ed team supported the district court's finding that the policy was not discriminatory. The 10th Circuit noted that there was evidence to support a finding of discriminatory purpose: Girls participated in football less frequently than boys, the schools had discriminated against girls in the past, and the schools offered a separate girls' team in other sports. However, the district court did not clearly err because it had reasonable evidentiary basis to reject the allegation of discriminatory purpose. This case is an important reminder of the gravity of precisely applying the standard of commonality of interest when seeking class certification, particularly when pursuing class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Further, this case shows that a mere showing of advantage based on gender may be insufficient to support a claim of gender discrimination. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Pessin Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Joseph Pessin filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order and Judgment dated December 9, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH PESSIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE US BENEFITS EXECUTIVE, as Plan Administrator of the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK and J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, JPMORGAN CHASE RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02436, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11, 2022, the complaint is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan participants and their beneficiaries and estates, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Company and its predecessors for more than 31 years. For the last 15 years of his employment, he earned no benefit under the JPMC Plan, his benefit having been effectively frozen as of December 31, 2003. This was because the benefit he had accrued through December 31, 2003, exceeded the benefit that he accrued over the subsequent years, a phenomenon known as "wear-away" because the benefit under a prior benefit formula must be worn away before the participant earns a benefit under a new formula. On August 24, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted on December 9, 2022 through an order signed by Judge Denise L. Cote. Accordingly, the case was closed. The appellate case is captioned as Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, Case No. 23-25, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 9, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Pessin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David S. Preminger, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1140 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 380-6690 Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, as Plan Administrator of the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan; Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase & Company; and JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan are represented by: Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5258 KEY STAFFING INC: Roby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Key Staffing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Roby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Key Staffing, Inc., TNG Energy Services, Case No. BCV-23-100130 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 17, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Key Staffing -- https://www.hirekeystaff.com/ -- is a locally owned, full-service staffing agency serving Bakersfield and Kern County.[BN] KING UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against King University. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. King University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00408 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. King University -- https://www.king.edu/ -- is a private Presbyterian-affiliated university in Bristol, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal LITTLE ROCK, AR: Edwards Files ADA Suit in E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Little Rock. The case is styled as Pete Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Little Rock, Case No. 4:23-cv-00039-DPM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Little Rock -- https://www.littlerock.gov/ -- the capital of Arkansas, is a city on the Arkansas River.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucien R. Gillham, Esq. Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC 1501 North Pierce Street, Suite 105 Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: (501) 315-1910 Fax: (501) 315-1916 Email: lucien.gillham@gmail.com luthersutter.law@gmail.com LUCID GROUP: Motion for Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports Lucid Group Inc (LCID.O) on Wednesday won the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing the luxury electric car maker of defrauding investors in the special-purpose acquisition company that helped take it public, by significantly overstating its production outlook in the case-captioned In re CCIV/Lucid Motors Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-09323. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California said that despite media speculation, Churchill Capital Corp IV shareholders who brought the proposed class action had no reason to know in early 2021 that the SPAC would merge with Lucid. As a result, she said Lucid Chief Executive Peter Rawlinson's alleged misleading statements on Feb. 5, 2021 on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" could not have been material to their decisions to invest in the SPAC. "The court cannot conceive of how plaintiffs could reasonably think a merger was likely when Lucid and CCIV had not even publicly acknowledged that a merger was being considered," the judge wrote. Rawlinson had told CNBC that his Newark, California-based company expected to produce 6,000 to 7,000 units of its Air vehicle in 2021, and had "already built" a factory. Churchill shares fell 50% in the two days following the Feb. 22, 2021 merger announcement, wiping out an estimated $7.4 billion in value, after Lucid said it expected to produce only 577 units and the factory was not built. Rogers said the Churchill shareholders had standing to sue over statements made by a different company, Lucid, because they alleged a "discernible" loss from "specific alleged misconduct." But she said the pre-merger changes in Churchill's stock price, including reaction to Rawlinson's statements, reflected "the public's perception of the likelihood of the merger, not its actual likelihood. The latter is what matters." The merger raised about $4.4 billion for Lucid. In Dec. 2021, Lucid received a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena for documents related to the merger. It has said it has been cooperating. The company began delivering the Air in Oct. 2021. Lawyers for Churchill shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lucid and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests. [GN] MARCO & FAMILY: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Cabreja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARCO & FAMILY TIRES AUTO MECHANIC LLC, MARCO PRENSA, and ZULAIKA HERRERA ALMONTE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00231 (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought seeking equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"); the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"); and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), by willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wages for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay or the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages was a violation of the FLSA and NJWHL and/or Defendants acted in reckless disregard of the federal and state wage and hour laws. The Defendants' refusal to pay the Plaintiff all wages owed to the Plaintiff is an intentional and willful violation of federal and state wage and hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto mechanic from February 1, 2021 until August 25, 2022. MFTAM is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Morales, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com MAZDA MOTOR: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to April 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIYA MARINOVA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01453-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order regarding stipulation to vacate deadline for class certification as follows: -- The due date for the motion for class certification, as dictated by the court's August 31, 2022, Order Setting Rule 26(F) Scheduling Conference is extended by 30 days, thereby extending the timeframe to file the motion for class certification from no later than 120 days from the date originally set for the Scheduling Conference to no later than 150 days from the date originally set for the Scheduling Conference. -- Therefore, because the date originally set for the Scheduling Conference was November 3, 2022, the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before April 2, 2023 (150 days from November 3, 2022). Mazda Motor is an international automotive manufacturer A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iFCyKO at no extra charge.[CC] MAZDA MOTOR: Fuel Pump Recall Prompts Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Mazda fuel pump recall caused a class action lawsuit that has been dismissed after the plaintiff sued on behalf of himself and other Mazda owners. In November 2021, a Mazda fuel pump recall was announced because the DENSO pumps were defective and needed to be replaced. Mazda told the government about 1% of the vehicles may have been equipped with faulty fuel pumps. DENSO and multiple automakers issued fuel pump recalls, but the Mazda plaintiff insisted other 2013-2020 Mazda vehicles should have been recalled. The 2021 Mazda fuel pump recall included these models and model years. 2018 Mazda Mazda3 2018 Mazda Mazda6 2019 Mazda CX-3 2018-2019 Mazda MX-5 2018-2019 Mazda CX-5 2018-2019 Mazda CX-9 2019-2020 Mazda Mazda2 The Mazda class action lawsuit was filed by Tamerlane T. Bey II, who alleges all fuel pumps ending with part number 13350 are defective. The plaintiff says Mazda should have warned customers to park their vehicles, and the automaker should have provided loaner cars to customers until the fuel pumps were replaced. The Mazda fuel pump recall was announced in November 2021, but Mazda said it knew of only four vehicles that had fuel pump problems as of September 2021. Mazda Fuel Pump Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed Plaintiff Tamerlane T. Bey II, filed the fuel pump lawsuit "pro se," meaning on behalf of himself. But because it is a class action lawsuit, the plaintiff said he was representing himself and other Mazda customers. Mazda filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit but the plaintiff didn't file a response. Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the fuel pump class action by first noting the lawsuit alleges other Mazda customers claim they took their vehicles to Mazda for fuel pump problems. However, the plaintiff didn't claim he took his vehicle to a Mazda dealer. The judge also found the same details in the plaintiff's lawsuit were "verbatim as to the experience of the named plaintiff in another class action currently pending in California's Central District, but with the substitution of Bey's name." "Bey's complaint is, aside from the insertion of his own name and vehicle purchase information, nearly word-for-word identical to the first complaint filed in the California action. This explains some idiosyncrasies of the complaint, such as references to "counsel," though Bey proceeds pro se, and references to multiple plaintiffs, despite Bey proceeding alone." -- Judge Oetken However, Judge Oetken dismissed the entire Mazda fuel pump lawsuit because as "a pro se plaintiff, Bey cannot bring an action on behalf of others." The Mazda fuel pump class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Tamerlane T. Bey II, v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al. The plaintiff is representing himself. [GN] MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Law Firms Join Forces to File Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Australian Associated Press reports that Australian law firms have joined forces to run a landmark data breach complaint against private health insurer Medibank. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Bannister Law Class Actions and Centennial Lawyers have united to run the data breach complaint against Medibank which they say could secure compensation for as many as 9.7 million affected customers. Data from millions of current and former Medibank customers was hacked in October, with the Russian ransomware group behind the breach releasing the information in stages onto the dark web. The three law firms have been investigating compensation claims and say they have already registered tens of thousands of Medibank customers. Last November, Maurice Blackburn lodged a formal complaint against Medibank with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which has the power to order compensation. Under the firms' co-operation agreement, they will now pursue the OAIC complaint seeking compensation for those affected by the data breach. Bannister Law Class Actions principal Charles Bannister said he hoped the co-operation agreement would lead swiftly to compensation payments to the millions of Medibank customers whose data was breached. "We believe the data breach is a betrayal of Medibank Private's customers and a breach of the Privacy Act. Medibank has a duty to keep this kind of information confidential," Mr Bannister said. Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions Andrew Watson said the co-operation agreement was a significant development. "This data breach has caused millions of Australians significant distress," he said. "The co-operation agreement ensures that all three law firms are working together for the common aim of obtaining compensation for those affected as quickly as possible." A Medibank representative said the company was continuing to co-operate with the OAIC. "Medibank continues to support its customers from the impact of this crime through our previously announced Cyber Response Support Program which includes mental health and wellbeing support, identity protection and financial hardship measures," the representative said. [GN] MEDICAL SECURITY: Extension of Discovery Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASB CORPORATION d/b/a OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUG, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-14206-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for class certification-related discovery and for the filing of a class certification motion by 30 days. -- The Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for class certification discovery to April 3, 2023, and for the Plaintiff to file its class certification motion to April 17, 2023, and for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff served written discovery requests on Defendant on December 8, 2022. Due to the holidays, the volume of information requested, and counsel's pre-paid family vacation, the Defendant has been unable to gather all of the information necessary to respond Plaintiff's requests. Accordingly, the Defendant reached out to the Plaintiff to request an extension to February 8, 2023, to respond to the discovery requests. Under the Court's scheduling order, class discovery must be completed by March 2, 2023, and Plaintiff's class certification brief must be filed by March 16, 2023. The Plaintiff anticipates needing to conduct depositions after receiving the Defendant's responses and documents prior to filing its class certification brief. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZQbzgu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 820 W 41st St, #318 Miami Beach, FL 33140 Telephone: (305) 239-8726 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com service@classlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Julia M. Wischmeier, Esq. Zachary Foster, Esq. Jacob Bradley, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3400 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-384-6726 E-mail: Julia.Wischmeier@quarles.com zachary.foster@quarles.com Jacob.bradley@quarles.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Spence Files Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------- WebRecon of AccountsRecovery.net reports that class action accuses collector of using Inaccurate name of original creditor in the case-captioned Danielle Spence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Johnson Mark LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. with case number Civil Action No: 2:22-cv-821. A class-action complaint has been filed in federal court in Utah against a collection law firm for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with its Model Validation Notice, which was not dated, but also because the debt was allegedly purchased before the notice was sent, and the complaint alleges the phrase "you had an account from" that company is technically not accurate. You may also find the MVN used in this case interesting because it has a few differences from the CFPB's Model Validation Notice -- none of which were mentioned in the complaint. The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. The complaint alleges the notice fails to identify the original creditor and instead uses the name of the company that purchased the debt from the original creditor. The complaint alleges the phrase "You had an account from . . ." is false, misleading, and/or deceptive because the plaintiff never had an account with that company. The notice does include a disclaimer that "Midland Credit Management, Inc. has purchased the above-referenced account and is the current creditor. " The complaint also alleges that the defendant violated the FDCPA because, without a date, the plaintiff had no way to determine what "today" and "now" referred to in the notice, which was allegedly misleading. The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else who received a similar undated MVN in reference to a debt owed by the creditor named in this notice. One interesting sidenote is that the defendant altered the standard MVN to include QR codes to a customer portal so the recipient could chat with a representative and to its payment portal. [GN] MIGUEL CARDONA: Intervenors Seek Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA SWEET, et al., v. MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Education, and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-03674-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Intervenors request that the Court grant their motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, or, in the alternative, to stay the judgment as to Intervenors. The Intervenors are Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, Everglades College, Inc., and American National University The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge "a policy of inaction" on their BD claims. Later, the Plaintiffs supplemented the Complaint to also challenge the use of "form denials" for a subset of claims. By the time the proposed settlement was lodged, however, these claims were moot because the Department had long abandoned any alleged policy of inaction -- indeed, it has granted tens of thousands of BD applications in the last two years -- and agreed to reconsider all alleged form denials. The Plaintiffs received the relief they requested in the Complaints, this case was moot. This Court found the case not to be moot because the Department has not yet finally adjudicated every single Class member's BD application. A copy of the Intervenors' motion dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7RBWV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Zelenay, Jr., Esq. Lucas Townsend, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7449 E-mail: jzelenay@gibsondunn.com ltownsend@gibsondunn.com - and - Jesse Panuccio, Esq. Jason Hilborn, Esq. John J. Kucera, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 E-mail: jpanuccio@bsfllp.com jhilborn@bsfllp.com jkucera@bsfllp.com - and - John S. Moran, Esq. Piper A. Waldron, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 888 16th St. N.W., Suite 500 Black Lives Matter Plaza Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 828-2817 E-mail: jmoran@mcguirewoods.com pwaldron@mcguirewoods.com MYLOCKER.COM LLC: Standing Order Entered on Patagonia Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patagonia, Inc., v. MyLocker.com LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00219-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge JOHN F. WALTER entered a standing order as follows:: -- The plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. -- Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. -- All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. -- Motions shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. -- Not more than two days after the deadline for filing the Reply, each party shall lodge a Proposed Statement of Decision, which shall contain a statement of the relevant facts and applicable law with citations to case law and the record. -- Motions for Class Certification shall be filed within 120 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action (or if applicable 120 days after service of the Notice of Removal), unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Patagonia is an American retailer of outdoor clothing. It was founded by Yvon Chouinard in 1973 and is based in Ventura, California. Mylocker.com (trade name Customcat) is in the letterpress and screen printing business. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XvNpFW at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL MENTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Hagans Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HAGANS et al., v. NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00128-KMW-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon A. King entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Pretrial factual discovery is April 13, 2003 extended to: -- All affirmative expert reports May 12, 2023 on class certification and merits based expert reports counsel for the Defendants no later than: -- Deposition of proposed class Sept. 13, 2023 certification and merits based expert witness shall be concluded by: Dispositive motions shall Nov. 14. 2023 be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than: Class Certification motions Nov. 14, 2023 shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than: National Mentor operates as a holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w89wqs at no extra charge.[CC] NEW JERSEY: Law School Students Played Role in Abuse Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Rutgers News Service reports that Rutgers and Seton Hall law school students played a crucial role in a $20.8 million settlement providing compensation to women who recently served time at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, where there has been a systemic culture of abuse. Rampant sexual misconduct, assault and abuse by corrections officers and staff over decades have yielded civil lawsuits and criminal convictions. The facility in Hunterdon County was also the subject of a 2020 federal report which found sexual abuse of inmates to be an "open secret" among staff and inmates. Those who reported such abuse were removed from their cells and placed in isolation as a matter of policy as punishment for speaking out. In the wake of these disclosures, the state Department of Corrections settled a class action lawsuit, allowing any woman imprisoned since Jan. 1, 2014 to file for compensation between $1,000 and $250,000, provided they never filed a previous claim related to sexual misconduct or a hostile environment at the facility. The settlement created a significant task to find, interview, and file claims for the hundreds of current and former inmates eligible for compensation - a difficult and emotional task undertaken by Rutgers Law students in partnership with Seton Hall Law. "It was extraordinarily traumatic for the women to relive their experiences in the prison, as well as the underlying assaults many of them had experienced throughout their lives," said Chelsea Fadio, a third-year Rutgers Law student. "Being able to advocate for these women and make sure their stories were heard was really the most important aspect for me. This was about more than just enhancing my law school experience. This was about enabling women who have been overlooked and disenfranchised to have their voices and stories heard," Fadio said. Rutgers' involvement began when plaintiffs' counsel Oliver Barry, a 2013 law school graduate, approached Associate Dean of Pro Bono and Public Interest Jill Friedman to see if students could assist claimants in completing the affidavits needed to file to receive funds. "As soon as Oliver and I agreed to do the project, we immediately brought in Seton Hall Law School to make this a statewide effort," Friedman said. "We were incredibly proud to collaborate with them. They jumped on board immediately and enthusiastically and handled almost all the administration of the project. And their students were fantastic." The project enlisted 15 students from each of the law schools. Students received intensive training that covered the details of the settlement, their expected duties, and trauma-informed lawyering techniques. They were then assigned claimants to interview and assist. Students worked in pairs, along with a supervising attorney, to collect as much information as they could about each claimant's story. They drafted affidavits, obtained supporting documents, including medical and court records, and offered emotional support - sometimes checking in with claimants every day or multiple times a day leading up to their hearings. Students and a supervising attorney accompanied clients on Zoom proceedings to provide support, guide them through the telling of their story, and ensure every point was made as clearly as possible to get the best result in front of the Special Master. In the end, students participated in about 100 hearings. "I can't rate the students high enough," says claimant Kim Brewer, who worked with Rutgers Law students to file a claim. "They walked me through everything and helped me feel comfortable even when discussing things that are very uncomfortable to speak about." The experience gave students a lesson into what it is like to work with clients. "I learned what social change through litigation looks like," said Crystal Mor Henwood, a third year Newark-based law student, "and that includes the pros as well as the cons." For some women, telling their story and having it affirmed by the court also provided a measure of healing. "It took real bravery by the women to share their stories after years of being silenced," Henwood said "After all, reliving trauma can be an emotionally risky journey, and the fact that the prison remains open is deeply disturbing." While the hearings might be over, the work is far from done. Many claimants require additional resources, from mental and physical health services to financial training, housing, and substance use treatment. "The settlement money alone does not fix the issue," Fadio said. "It has brought the injustices to light, but it doesn't right the wrongs that have been done." [GN] OCEAN AVENUE: Bamla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Ty Bamla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. OCEAN AVENUE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01000 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation and by failing to provide uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks. The Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees were routinely unable, and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for every shift they worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees were forced to continue working through their meal and rest breaks in order to assist Defendant's needs. Because of this, Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were unable to take their required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break to the Plaintiff and the Defendant's California employees who were denied timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor Code. The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to pay all overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. Ocean Avenue LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in Santa Monica, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com OLIN CORP: Bid to Extend Class Cert Discovery Deadlines OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS, ET AL. v. OLIN CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00374-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. entered an order granting the joint motion to extend class certification discovery deadlines, and amending the scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline to join other parties Expired or to amend the pleadings: 2. Exchanging initial disclosures Expired required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1): 3. Class Certification Discovery Sept. 18, 2023 Filing a motion for class certification: 4. The Defendant's Memorandum in Nov. 2, 2023 Opposition to class certification: 5. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum: Nov. 16, 2023 6. Proposed hearing date for class Dec. 4, 2023. certification: 7. Filing all discovery motions and April 21, 2023 completing all discovery except experts: 8. Disclosure of identities and resumes of experts: Plaintiff(s): May 5, 2023 Defendant(s): June 6, 2023 9. Expert reports must be submitted to opposing parties as follows: Plaintiff(s): June 21, 2023 Defendant(s): July 21, 2023 10. Discovery from experts must be Sept. 1, 2023 completed by: Olin Corp is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XC0cGK at no extra charge.[CC] PAW BRANDS LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paw Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paw Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00417-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paw Brands -- https://pawbrands.com/ -- is the wholesale division of award-winning designer and manufacturer of innovative pet products.[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 PEAK TECHNICAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Technical Services, Inc. The case is styled as Darius Walker, on on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Peak Technical Services, Inc., Peak Technical Services L.P., Emsar Biomedical Services Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00333158-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 17, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." PEAK Technical -- https://www.peaktechnical.com/ -- is one of the leading information technology and engineering recruiting agencies, places top talent into rewarding careers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. MICHAEL R. CROSNER A LAW CORP 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: 818-515-2382 Fax: 310-510-6429 Email: mrclawyer@aol.com PENSAR BIG: Faces Sweat Suit Over Shift Managers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE SWEAT, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. PENSAR BIG, INC.; CARMEN HUERTA; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV00616 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 11, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to give rest breaks; failure to give meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide personnel records; and failure to provide pay records. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly non-exempt employee and her latest position was that of "shift manager." Pensar Big, Inc. was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com PFIZER INC: Walter Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled DAPHNE WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01708, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00206-KPF to the proceeding. This is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of varenicline-containing medications under the brand name Chantix(R) that allegedly contain dangerously high levels of N-nitroso-varenicline, a carcinogenic impurity. Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered at 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. Piucci, Esq. PIUCCI LAW 900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 701-0357 Facsimile: (503) 228-2571 The Defendant is represented by: Anthony A. Todaro, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 701 5th Avenue, Suite 7000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 839-4830 Facsimile: (206) 839-4801 PRAIRIE HOME: Burayi Sues Over Resident Aides' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BURAYI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE HOME ELDER SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00035-WCG (E.D. Wis., January 10, 2023) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, seeking relief for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in November 2020 in the position of resident aide working at Defendant's Menasha, Wisconsin location. In approximately January 2023, Plaintiff's employment with Defendant ended. Prairie Home Elder Services, LLC is an assisted living facility with a principal place of business in Menasha, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com RICHARD T. AVIS: Baeza Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard T. Avis, Attorney & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Salome Baeza a/k/a Salome Baeza Jacquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Richard T. Avis, Attorney & Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Richard T. Avis, Attorney & Associates -- https://avislawgroup.com/ -- is a law firm specializing in Breach of Contract Law and Commercial Litigation since 1993 in both Illinois and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RIVIER UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivier University. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Rivier University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rivier University -- https://www.rivier.edu/ -- is a private Catholic liberal arts university in Nashua, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FERNANDO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-571755, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00119-DMR to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action for willful misclassification of Plaintiffs and Class members in violation of the California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages upon termination of employment, failure to provide meal periods, and failure to provide rest periods; as well as unfair business practices in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Roadrunner Transportation Services is an asset-light transportation and logistics service provider.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com - and - Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 5470 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 520 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (206) 288-6192 Facsimile: (206) 299-9375 E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com apaynter@scopelitis.com ROSEVILLE, CA: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Hill-Colbert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS HILL-COLBERT, JENNIFER TIMMONS, HERMINIO LEBRON, DANIEL REED, VINCENT BARNAO, ERIN MCMARLIN, and JAMES THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TYLER CANTLEY, and DOE 1-20, Case No. 2:22-cv-01651-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb entered an order vacating the status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for January 17, 2023, and makes the following findings and orders without needing to consult with the parties any further. -- The court denied that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction because plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm. -- The parties agree to serve the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before February 16, 2023. -- The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than April 26, 2024. -- The parties proposed May 15, 2023 as the hearing date for plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iHC5I5 at no extra charge.[CC] SHIELDS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $1.9M Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that consolidated class action lawsuits filed against Shields Health Care Group sued over $1.9 million-record data breach. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Massachusetts-based Shields Health Care Group, which suffered one of the largest healthcare data breaches of the year, affecting almost 2 million individuals. Seven of the lawsuits have recently been consolidated into a single lawsuit - Biscan v. Shields Health Care Group Inc - that was filed in a Massachusetts federal court this week. The lawsuit covers all individuals affected by the data breach who did not live in Massachusetts at the time of the breach. A second lawsuit has been filed in state court that covers Massachusetts residents. Shields Health Care Group provides MRI, PET/CT, radiation oncology, and surgical services to healthcare practices, around 60 of which were affected by the breach. Hackers gained access to its network and stole the protected health information of patients over a two-week period in March 2022. The stolen data included names, contact information Social Security numbers, insurance information, billing information, and clinical information such as diagnoses and treatment information. Affected individuals were offered a 2-year membership to a credit monitoring service. The plaintiffs allege Shields Health Care Group failed to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient data and then failed to issue timely notifications to patients to inform them that their data was in the hands of cybercriminals and that the notification letters did not provide adequate information to allow the affected individuals to take appropriate action to assess and mitigate risk. The lawsuits allege Shields Health Care Group was fully aware of the risk of hacking and ransomware attacks on healthcare organizations given the multiple security alerts issued by the FBI, CISA, and the HHS, yet failed to implement adequate measures to reduce risk, which was in violation of its obligations under the HIPAA Security Rule. Shields Health Care Group said a security alert was triggered on March 18, 2022, which was investigated but no breach was detected, then suspicious activity was identified within its network on March 28, 2022. The investigation confirmed patient data had been compromised notifications were issued to affected individuals on June 7, 2022, outside the reporting time frame of the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. The lawsuits claim notifications were untimely, and deficient in information, failing to even provide basic information about the breach, such as whether patient data on the servers were accessed. The lawsuit also alleges the credit monitoring services offered were inadequate given that affected individuals face many years of ongoing identity theft. While many lawsuits are filed based on future risk of harm, the plaintiffs claim to have suffered financial losses as a result of the breach and have had to spend a significant amount of time monitoring their financial accounts. One plaintiff said suspicious activity was identified in his email account and he had thousands of dollars of fraudulent charges to his Bank of America account, and another plaintiff claims to have been targeted by scammers over the phone since the data breach. The lawsuits allege negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks class action status, damages, and injunctive relief. [GN] SNAPCOMMERCE GOODS: Khargie Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snapcommerce Goods, Inc. The case is styled as James Khargie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snapcommerce Goods, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00208 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Snapcommerce -- http://snapcommerce.shop/-- is the mobile commerce platform that uses AI to connect price-conscious consumers to the best deals online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Fax: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- Business Wire of Valdosta Daily Times reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE: LUV) between June 13, 2020 and December 31, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Southwest Airlines investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Southwest Airlines continuously downplayed or ignored the serious issues with the technology it used to schedule flights and crews, and how it stood to be affected worse than other airlines in the event of inclement weather; and (2) it did not discuss how it's unique point-to-point service and aggressive flight schedule could leave it prone in the event of inclement weather; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10716 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. CONTACT: Information:Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SPOTIFY USA: Saleh Wiretapping Suit Removed to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled MOHAMED SALEH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant, Case No. BER-L006625-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 11, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00147 to the proceeding. The complaint is brought for Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act. Spotify USA Inc. provides an entertainment software. The Company offers platform that enables users to find music on their phones, computers, and tablets.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy M. Haggerty, Esq. Jason C. Rubinstein, Esq. Mala Ahuja Harker, Esq. Sofia G. Syed, Esq. FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP One Gateway Center, 25th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Telephone: (973) 877-6400 STABILITY AI: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Artists' Copyright ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Cronin, writing for CBR, reports that a lawsuit on behalf of a group of plaintiff artists has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against three companies: Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney, over the alleged infringement of the copyright of the artists in the creation of so-called "artificial intelligence" art. "As burgeoning technology continues to change every aspect of the modern world, it's critical that we recognize and protect the rights of artists against unlawful theft and fraud. This case represents a larger fight for preserving ownership rights for all artists and other creators." said Joseph Saveri, founder of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, who is representing the plaintiffs along with Matthew Butterick, and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. What Is the Basis for This Legal Claim Against A.I. Art? The three companies all share the use of Stable Diffusion, an artificial intelligence product that was based on the billion of images contained in the LAION-5B dataset. The lawsuit alleges that there are billions of copyrighted images involved in the creation of Stable Diffusion. Therefore, the lawsuit alleges the use of those images leads to direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement related to forgeries, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), violation of class members' rights of publicity, breach of contract related to the DeviantArt Terms of Service, and various violations of California's unfair competition laws. Not only is the lawsuit seeking damages for the alleged violations, but want an injunction to avoid future problems until some sort of system could be created that would allow for artists to be fairly compensated for their artwork being used in "A.I. art." As the claim alleges, music streaming services have found a way to compensate musical artists, so there should be a way for this to work, as well. One of the Plaintiffs Speaks Out About the Case One of the artist plaintiffs in the case, Karla Ortiz, took to social media to discuss her excitement about the lawsuit. She noted, "I am proud to be one of the plaintiffs named for this class action suit. I am proud to do this with fellow peers, that we'll give a voice to potentially thousands of affected artists. I'm proud that now we fight for our rights not just in the public sphere but in the courts!" [GN] STATEWIDE COLLECTION: Silber Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statewide Collection Service, Inc. The case is styled as Avrum Silber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Statewide Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-00414-CS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Statewide Collection Service -- https://www.statewidecollectionservice.com/home/e2/ -- is a collection agency located in Salisbury, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SUPERIOR TANK CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superior Tank Co., Inc. The case is styled as Sergio Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Superior Tank Co., Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 17, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Superior Tank -- https://superiortank.com/ -- can help with everything for water and oil storage; from tank engineering, bolted & welded tank manufacturing and tank installation.[BN] TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH THOMPSON v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00584-CRS-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Simpson III entered an scheduling order on parties' proposed planning schedule outline and referral order as follows: 1. Pre-Discovery Disclosures: To be exchanged by January 18, 2023. 2. Preliminary Discovery: None. The parties shall conduct discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Joint Local Rules for the Eastern and Western District of Kentucky. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E), the parties consent to service of discovery or any other paper for which service is required for electronical mail. The Plaintiff's counsel has filed seven additional individual lawsuits, which are currently pending in the Western District of Kentucky, and one (1) class action lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky, asserting claims against Trans Union that are similar to those filed here. Those seven (7) lawsuits are: "Artis v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-448-GNS (W.D. KY);" "Bartley v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-425-RGJ (W.D. KY);" "Breen v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-447-RGJ (W.D. KY);" Glover v. Credit Management, L.P., et al, Case No. 3:22-CV- 568-RGJ (W.D. KY);" Stamey v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-437-RGJ (W.D. KY);" Thompson v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-586-DJH (W.D. KY);" and "Trimble v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-431-CRS (W.D. KY);" The class action lawsuit is: a. Coffey v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-CV-271 (E.D. KY) The Court further ordered that the case is stayed pending a ruling on the Plaintiff's class-certification motion in the Putative Class Action. On or before June 1, 2023, the parties shall file a joint status report as to the status of Plaintiff's class-certification motion in the Putative Class Action. Finally, it is further ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A), this matter is hereby referred to Honorable Colin H. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge, for resolution of all litigation planning issues, entry of scheduling orders, consideration of amendments thereto, and disposition of all non-dispositive matters, including discovery issues. The Magistrate Judge is authorized and empowered to conduct all necessary scheduling conferences, hearings or other proceedings which in his discretion he deems necessary in order to properly address the issues which arise in the course of this litigation. The Magistrate Judge is further authorized to conduct a settlement conference in this matter at any time should counsel indicate that a conference would be helpful in resolving the issues. Counsel shall jointly contact case manager Theresa Burch at (502) 625-3546 to schedule the conference when so needed. TransUnion is a risk and information solutions provider to individuals, government, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WdxNpp at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Laid-Off Workers Can't Pursue Claims Via Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reuters reports that Twitter Inc has secured a ruling allowing the social media company to force several laid-off workers suing over their termination to pursue their claims via individual arbitration than a class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge James Donato on Jan. 13 ruled that five former Twitter employees pursuing a proposed class action accusing the company of failing to give adequate notice before laying them off after its acquisition by Elon Musk must pursue their claims in private arbitration. Donato granted Twitter's request to force the five ex-employees to pursue their claims individually, citing agreements they signed with the company. Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The San Francisco judge left for another day "as warranted by developments in the case" whether the entire class action lawsuit must be dismissed, though, as he noted three other former Twitter employees who alleged they had opted out of the company's arbitration agreement have joined the lawsuit after it was first filed. The lawyer who represents the plaintiffs, Shannon Liss-Riordan, said on Jan. 9 that she had already filed 300 demands for arbitration on behalf of former Twitter employees and would likely file hundreds more. Those workers all claim they have not received the full severance package promised by Twitter before Musk took over. Some have also alleged sex or disability discrimination. Last year, Donato had ruled that Twitter must notify the thousands of workers who were laid off after its acquisition by Musk following a proposed class action accusing the company of failing to give adequate notice before terminating them. The judge said that before asking workers to sign severance agreements waiving their ability to sue the company, Twitter must give them "a succinct and plainly worded notice". Twitter laid off roughly 3,700 employees in early November in a cost-cutting measure by Musk, and hundreds more subsequently resigned. In December last year, Twitter was also accused by dozens of former employees of various legal violations stemming from Musk's takeover of the company, including targeting women for layoffs and failing to pay promised severance. Twitter is also facing at least three complaints filed with a U.S. labor board claiming workers were fired for criticizing the company, attempting to organize a strike, and other conduct protected by federal labor law. [GN] UHG I LLC: Powell Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UHG I LLC. The case is styled as Zachary Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UHG I LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00086-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. UHG I, LLC -- https://uhgllc.com/ -- is a third-party debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq. MILITARY LAW CENTER, Inc. 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 536-9038 Email: nick@barthelbarthel.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Ste. C 195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Sues Over Staff Accountants' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED HEALTH CENTERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-EPG (E.D. Cal., January 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the applicable California Industrial Wage Commission. Plaintiff Mitchell was hired by UHSJ as a staff accountant on March 2, 2015. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was properly classified as a non-exempt employee and paid an hourly wage. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide compliant meal breaks and premiums, failure to timely pay wages on separation, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful business practices. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley is a private non-profit organization established to improve access to healthcare in rural communities of California's Central Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. Robert J. Wassermann, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 E-mail: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com rwassermann@mayallaw.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Muccio Class Suit Over Automated Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action lawsuit with case-captioned Muccio v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., has been filed against United HealthCare Services, Inc. by a Florida resident who claims to have received numerous automated text messages from the company without his consent. A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against United HealthCare Services, Inc. by a Florida resident who claims to have received numerous automated text messages from the company without his consent. According to the 19-page complaint, the defendant "bombarded" the plaintiff with automated texts soliciting its health insurance products and services between 2021 and 2022 and likely sent similar messages to other consumers. Per the lawsuit, United HealthCare "knowingly" violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), which prohibits companies from placing automated sales calls and texts to consumers without their prior written consent. The suit claims that the sheer volume, frequency, and "impersonal and generic nature" of the text messages received by the plaintiff prove that United HealthCare used a "computer software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiffs and the Class members' telephone numbers. " The company's use of an automated messaging platform to send solicitous texts "without any human involvement" enabled it to "maximize the reach of its text message advertisements" at little cost to United HealthCare, the case charges. The filing contends that the defendant could have lawfully promoted its services via automated text messaging simply by procuring consent from consumers prior to sending the texts. The plaintiff claims he never authorized United HealthCare to send him automated text messages and, like other consumers, was unaware of how to stop them. The man has suffered "annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of [his] privacy" as a result, the complaint claims. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in Florida who has received automated text messages soliciting United HealthCare's products and/or services.[GN] UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Invasion Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris of Madison Record reports that U. S. District Judge Staci Yandle must decide whether to dismiss a class action privacy invasion claim against Exchange stores on military bases or remand it to Madison County where it started. Plaintiff Linda Thompson of Godfrey and the United States agree that Yandle can't keep it in her court. Thompson concedes she suffered no concrete injury, which means Yandle would lack jurisdiction and a Madison County judge wouldn't. Roy Dripps of Maryville filed Thompson's complaint in October 2022. He identified her as a retired chief radio operator who purchased items with a credit card at the Exchange on Scott Air Force base. He claimed all Exchanges violated federal law requiring them to mask expiration dates of credit and debit cards on receipts. Dripps claimed the violations increased the risk of identity theft and breached the confidence of customers in safe handling of their information. He added that it would have been simple for Exchanges to program their systems to print receipts that didn't display expiration dates. Dripps proposed to certify a class of individuals in the U. S. and its territories whose expiration dates appeared on debit or credit card receipts at Exchanges. He claimed there were at least tens of thousands of persons in the class. He proposed a class period starting in October 2020 and ending on the date of class certification. Dripps listed Scott Owens of Florida and Chicago lawyers Keith Keogh, Michael Hilicki, and William Sweetnam as associates. Taylor Pitz of the justice department in Washington removed the complaint to district court on Dec. 2 on behalf of U. S. Attorney Rachelle Crowe. He claimed federal law authorizes the U. S. to remove actions from state courts. Sweetnam moved to remand on Dec. 22, citing a Seventh Circuit decision that the same allegations didn't satisfy requirements for standing in federal court. That decision required a plaintiff asserting a violation of statutory rights to allege that concrete harm resulted. Sweetnam claimed the only reason Thompson chose a state court was that the Seventh Circuit forced her to do so. He claimed Thompson didn't seek to enforce any state law against the U. S. or impose state law liability on it. Pitz moved to dismiss on January 3, 2023, claiming remand was unquestionably wrong. "That would lead to the entirely incorrect outcome whereby a claim against an entity of the federal government for an alleged violation of federal statutory law must be litigated in a state court," he wrote. "She has not had her identity stolen nor has she demonstrated that this violation makes her particularly susceptible to identity theft or any other harm," he added. Pitz claimed Exchanges provide quality merchandise at low prices primarily to military personnel. He claimed they generate reasonable earnings to supplement appropriations for morale, welfare, and recreation programs of Army and Air Force. "To independently determine whether a plaintiff's injury is concrete, courts consider whether the injury actually exists and whether it is real and not abstract," he wrote. Pitz claimed an injury must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, or at the very least certainly impending. He claimed any risk to Thompson remained entirely speculative and hypothetical. Pitz claimed Congress intended to provide federal officers and agencies with the protections of a federal forum. He added that the purpose of Congress was "to ensure that state courts lack the authority to hold federal officers criminally or civilly liable for acts performed in the execution of their duties." He claimed none of the cases Thompson cited where courts remanded substantially similar cases was brought against federal agencies. [GN] UNLIMITED ENTERPRISES: Underpays Logistics Drivers, Beltran Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKY BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. UNLIMITED ENTERPRISES, LLC; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC; RODERICK HENLEY, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV00639 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the law by failing to: provide employment records; pay overtime and double time; provide rest and meal periods; pay minimum wages; keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; pay reporting time wages; pay split shift wages; pay all wages earned on time; pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; and reimburse necessary, business-related expenses. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Amazon Logistics Driver from October 13, 2021 to January 23, 2022. Unlimited Eenterprises, LLC operates as a freight transportation provider. Amazon Logistics, Inc. operates as an Internet-based enterprise that sells items both directly and acts as a middleman between other retailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawvers.com cathy@hbklawvers.com melissa@hbklawvers.com VIDEOJEEVES INC: Robbins Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VideoJeeves, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Robbins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VideoJeeves, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00212 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Video Jeeves -- https://www.videojeeves.com/ -- is the best video animation production agency in the USA, with a team of expert animators to deliver quality animation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Fax: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com WALMART INC: Hearing on Haro Conditional Status Bid Set for Feb. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE ORTEGA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting the joint stipulation regarding deadlines concerning the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and related motions. -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Feb. 22, 2023 Conditional Certification and Approval of Notice remains set for: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in March 31, 2023 Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by: -- That Plaintiffs' Response to March 31, 2023 Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Drogin shall be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file any March 31, 2023 motions challenging Defendant's experts by: -- The Defendant's Response to any April 21, 2023 motion filed by Plaintiffs to challenge Defendant's experts shall be due by: -- That Defendant's Reply Brief in May 10, 2023 support of the Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Drogin and Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in support of any motions challenging the Defendant's experts shall be filed by: -- The motion for class May 31, 2023 certification, as well the related motions to exclude expert evidence, shall be heard on: -- A conference to set further Nov. 30, 2023 scheduling dates is set for: Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8u5t3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 South Lemon Avenue, #1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: (310) 928-1277 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com whogg@hftrialfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Laura L. Vaughn, Esq. Nathan J. Oleson, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com jpslowik@akingump.com vaughnl@akingump.com noleson@akingump.com WEST VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Jonathan R. v. Justice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JONATHAN R., et al., Plaintiffs v. JIM JUSTICE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00710 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Plaintiffs are children in the West Virginia foster care system. They allege this system, as run by Defendants Jim Justice, Bill Crouch, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, is structurally inept, in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Seeking system-wide reform, the Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of all children who are, or will be, placed in West Virginia foster care. The Plaintiffs' Complaint describes a legion of shortcomings in the foster care system. For instance, they allege that the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR") lacks a sufficient number of foster care placements. This, in turn, leads to DHHR segregating children in institutions, placing some in temporary shelters for indefinite stints of time, leaving others in "known abusive or neglectful homes," or placing them in poorly vetted and overcrowded foster homes. Staff shortages also plague the foster care system. DHHR, according to the Plaintiffs, fails to employ and retain a sufficient number of appropriately trained caseworkers. This leaves caseworkers swamped with "unmanageable caseloads," sometimes two or three times the recommended standard. The shortcomings, the Plaintiffs allege, have resulted in DHHR employing caseworkers that are poorly trained and ill-equipped to help West Virginian families. Unqualified, overworked caseworkers lead to other deficiencies in West Virginia's foster care system. High caseloads prevent caseworkers from timely assessing the needs of children entering the foster care system. Without timely assessments, DHHR cannot properly develop a foster child's individualized case plan. Similar shortcomings permeate the foster care system, further exacerbating an already difficult situation. The Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court on Sept. 30, 2019. The Complaint proposes one General Class, consisting of all children who are will be in West Virginia foster care, and three subclasses. The proposed Kinship Subclass consists of children who are, will be, or have been placed in kinship placements. The proposed ADA Subclass consists of children who have or will have physical, intellectual, cognitive, or mental health disabilities. The proposed Aging Out Subclass consists of children who are or will be 14 years old and older, who are eligible to receive age-appropriate transition planning but have not been provided the necessary case management and services. The Complaint includes five causes of action. First, the General class and each subclass allege violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, each class asserts violations of their right to familial association under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Third, all classes allege violations of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ("AACWA"). Fourth, the ADA subclass alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Fifth, the ADA subclass asserts a claim for violations of the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs sued Defendants Governor Jim Justice, then-Cabinet Secretary of the DHHR Bill Crouch, Deputy Secretary of the DHHR Jeremiah Samples, Commissioner of the Bureau for Children and Families Linda Watts, in their official capacity, as well as the DHHR. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants for the alleged deficiencies in the foster care system they oversee. Boiled down, the Plaintiffs seek three things. First, a declaration that these systematic deficiencies are unlawful. Second, injunctive relief that would require the Defendants to overhaul the West Virginia foster care system. Third, a court-appointed Monitor to oversee Defendants' compliance with the injunction. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As stated, the Plaintiffs allege violations of their substantive due process rights, right to familial association, AACWA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss each for failure to state a claim. With respect to Count I, Judge Johnston grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Looking first at the proposed General Class, he finds that the claims adequately allege that the Defendants turned a blind eye to a known danger that Plaintiffs would be mistreated and abused while in State custody. As to the proposed Kinship subclass, he finds that the first and third rights claimed by this Subclass have no basis in substantive due process. Lastly, substantive due process also does not protect any of the rights claimed by the proposed Aging Out subclass. Judge Johnston then turns to Count II, wherein the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated their right to familial association under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II. He holds that nothing in the First or Fourteenth Amendments require the Defendants to nurture the Plaintiffs' familial relationships. The Plaintiffs have also failed to allege that the Defendants improperly intruded on their parent-child relationships. Nor have they adequately alleged that Defendants violated their right to familial association with their siblings. Even if the Constitution did generally protect the relationship between siblings, that protection would not apply in the foster care context. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim for interference with their grandparent-grandchild relationships is foreclosed by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality opinion). In Count III, the Plaintiffs bring a Section 1983 claim, alleging the Defendants violated the AACWA. They allege Defendants violated their rights under certain sections of the AACWA. The Defendants counter that those sections do not confer privately enforceable rights. Judge Johnston grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III. He finds that since Congress has not spoken with a clear voice and manifested an 'unambiguous' intent to confer an individual right, Section 671(a)(16) is not privately enforceable. The Plaintiffs' Counts IV and V allege violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, respectively. The Defendants launch a litany of attacks at these claims. First, they say they never discriminated against the Plaintiffs because "shortcomings in the State's community-based mental health care system" affect everyone equally. Second, they argue they are not required to "provide a certain level of benefits" or services to the Plaintiffs. Third, the Defendants claim that the integration mandate is inapplicable here because the best-interest-of-the-child standard trumps federal law when it comes to determining the Plaintiffs' placements. Fourth, they claim there are no unjustified placements because "each and every placement has been approved by a state circuit court as in the best interest of the child." Fifth, and finally, they say that even if the integration mandate does apply, they have a comprehensive, effectively working plan to ensure children with disabilities are placed in the least restrictive settings." Judge Johnston denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts IV and V, holding that their efforts fall flat. He holds that (i) Title II simply requires a showing that the Plaintiffs have been "unjustifiably institutionaled" when a less restrictive placement would have been appropriate; (ii) the services are necessary for the Plaintiffs to participate in the foster care system, and they are not entirely new, stand-alone programs; (iii) the integration mandate does not force anyone to place the Plaintiffs in "an inappropriate setting"; (iv) when placing the Plaintiffs, state courts had no choice but to institutionalize them; and (v) the Complaint portrays a broken foster care system where children are "institutionalized and segregated from the outside world," leaving them to languish for years on end. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Johnston grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He directs the Clerk to send a copy of his Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yn39arh5 from Leagle.com. WING FINANCIAL: Stoichev Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wing Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Venelin Stoichev, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wing Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00026-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla., Jan. 17, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wing Financial -- https://www.wingsfinancial.com/ -- is provides tax preparation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry Frank Stokes, Esq. RUBENSTEIN & PITTS 1503 E 19th St. Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 340-1900 Fax: (405) 340-1001 Email: tstokes@oklawpartners.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***