/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230227.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 42 Headlines 4JLJ LLC: Files 5th Cir. Appeal in Edwards FLSA Suit 5TH BITE: Renton Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification AA ACTION: New Jersey Dismisses FDCPA Class Action ABCM CORP: Underpays Registered Nurses, Greenfield Suit Alleges ALICO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 18 ALICO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in M.D. Fla. ALLIED FIRST: Gabe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ALLIED WASTE: Amendment of Class Status Deadlines Sought ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Agrees to Settle Skiers' Class Suit for $17.5-M AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Wiretapping Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Kupferberg Antitrust Suit in E.D.N.Y. AMERICAN TUNA: Scheduling Order Entered in Craig AQ TEXTILES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 16 AUSTRALIA: Plaintiffs in NDIS Age Exclusions Lawsuit Speak Out BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Scheduling Order Entered in Rojas Suit BAYAMON MEDICAL: Umpierre, et al., File Class Certification Bid BENEFYTT TECH: Griffin, et al., File Bid for Class Certification CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bell Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir. CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Bid Denied, Plaintiffs Take Options CAPITAL PLUS: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Expert Reports CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: M&A Continues Probe of Abbott Lab Merger CARECORE HEALTH: Conditional Certification Ruling Stayed CASE WESTERN: Lozada Bid to Extend Case Management Schedule Nixed CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Settlement Agreement in Foon Gets Initial OK CENTURYLINK INC: Court OK's Bultemeyer Renewed Bid for Class Cert. CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Noble CHEGG INC: Faces Stansell Suit Over Undisclosed Business Model CHI HEALTH: Nurses to Receive $800,000 Settlement Over On-Call Pay CHRIST HOSPITAL: Doe Patient Data Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio CHRISTIAN DIOR: Health Care Exemption Plea in BIPA Suit Reaffirmed CIGNA HEALTH: Joint Stipulation to Extend Deadlines OK'd CITRIX SYSTEMS: Class Action Settlement in Boger Gets Initial OK CLUB 360: Bazarganfard Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Premature COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sued Over Contamination in Cleaning Products COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Padilla Securities Class Suit CONTACTUS LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 4 DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH: Dyous, et al., Seek Class Status DIRT CHEAP: Seeks More Time to Respond to Waddel Complaint DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Turley Class Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: GNOG Putative Class Suit Pending in Nevada EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Junks Richardson Class Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend Vega Securities Class Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Oral Argument on Cline Suit Set for March 21 ENVOLVE CLIENT: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal of Alvarado Suit ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Probes Potential Securities Claims ETTIKA LLC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Jimenez EXPEDIA GROUP: McCarthy Attorney Discusses Dismissal in Breach Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Closes Shaked Class Action FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Newman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid FIBROGEN INC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action FIELDALE FARMS: Settles Chicken Price-Fixing Class Suit for $181-M FIRST MIAMI: M&A Firm Continues Investigation of United Merger FLORISSANT CITY, MO: Baker Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd FOREST LAWN: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California FREEDOMROADS LLC: Umanzor Sues Over Salesmen's Unpaid Overtime FRIGATE'S WATERFRONT: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod G-III APPAREL: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims GARDEN GROVE: Burklund Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 12 GARDEN GROVE: Extension of Class Cert Schedule by 90 Days Sought GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over E85 FlexFuel Issue GENWORTH LIFE: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Daly Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. GRANGE INSURANCE: Sweetwater Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. GUITAR CENTER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Strehl Says GVG CAPITAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied w/o Prejudice HERSHEY COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Hollifield Says HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Albert HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Scarbrough HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Tripoli HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Parties' Joint Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd HOWMET AEROSPACE: Discovery Ongoing in Arconic Class Suits HUMANA INC: Calvin Loses Bid to Extend Class Status Deadline IMPERIAL METALS: Reaches Proposed Settlement in Securities Suit INMAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in Holmes Suit INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit INSPIRATO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17 INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: OLERS Class Suit Dismissed JAG CONTRACTORS: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought JOHNSON HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Treadmills Denied JUUL LABS: Settlement in Products Liability Suit Gets Initial OK KAGAN PROFESSIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KANSAS CITY TREE : Seeks to Decertify Conditional Class Cert. KASHI SALES: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Entered in Hoffman KC TREE: Prince Seeks to Strike Untimely Bid to Decertify Class KEVIN RANSOM: Taylor Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint KIA CORP: Faces Class Action in Wisconsin Over Car Thefts KIRKLAND LAKE: Brahms Files Bid for Class Certification KNIPSCHILDT/CHOCOPOLOGIE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York L&W LLC: McDowell Sues Over Unlawful Use of Consumer Report LAROSA'S INC: Hawk Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages LASTPASS US: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Andrew Claims LD'S CAFE: Ballinger Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages LOGAN HOLLOWELL: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LVNV FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Snyder M-I LLC: Seeks Leave to File Objections in Last Class Suit MADISON SECURITY: Chattman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations MARCUS POLLARD: Loses Reconsideration Bid on Class Cert Order MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit MASTERCARD INC: Summary Judgment Briefing to End July MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Bid to File Second Amended Class Action Nixed MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Learned Suit Transferred to E.D California MDL 3059: 5 Meat Substitute Product Suits Consolidated to N.D. Ill. MDL 3060: Nine Hair Relaxer Product Suits Consolidated to N.D. Ill. MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sowa Files Suit in N.D. Georgia MERCEDES-BENZ: Vehicle Subframes Prone to Rust, Suit Alleges META PLATFORMS: Tribunal Averts $3.7-Bil. Class Action in Britain MIDJOURNEY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement MONTREAL, QC: Mayor Testifies Over Racial Discrimination Class Suit MONUMENT INC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations MOUNT ST. MARYS SEMINARY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for April 14 MUTUAL MANAGEMENT: Strano Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NAOMI WHITTEL BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL RECOVERY: Roth Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sweeney, et al., File Class Certification Bid NELNET SERVICING: Miller Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Sayers Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Spearman Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Varlotta Consolidated with Data Security Cases NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Strusowski Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NEW POWER ZX: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Adkins Says NEW YORK, NY: Court Tosses Dunn Bid for Class Certification NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Entered in D.M Suit NEW YORK, NY: Heggs, et al., Seek to Certify Class NEW YORK: Flores, et al., Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Families Recall Evacuations in Class Action Suit NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Kinder Derailment Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims NUVASIVE INC: M&A Firm Continues Investigation of Globus Merger OLD COPPER: Sued Over Website's Fictitious Original Price Discounts OLD SOUL'S: Filing of Conditional Class Status Bid Due April 3 PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Renewed Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert Denied PEACH SKIN: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Mejia Class Suit PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: April 3 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set POWER PARAGON: Hearing on Bid for Class Certification Vacated PTT LLC: Compelled to Produce Documents RAGAN & RAGAN: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought REBBL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Roffman Suit RHODE ISLAND: ACLA Expands Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit RICE DRILLING: Proceedings in Honey Crest Suit Stayed RING LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Doorbell Security Flaws SAKS INC: Court Dismisses Giordano Class Action SALVATION ARMY: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order Entered SASKATCHEWAN: Long Process in Forced Sterilization Suit Discussed SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: General Pretrial Management Order Entered SEARCH WIZARDS: Bid to Extend Time to Mediate Tossed SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks Protective Order Staying All Discovery SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks Stay on Conditional Cert. Ruling SHELL LAKE: Coetzee Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Statistica Suit Over FTX Customer Funds SMART OILFIELD: Guthrie Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: LWD Loses Bid for Class Certification SOMNIA INC: Court Appoints Garber as Class Counsel in Chabak SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Order on Class Cert Discovery, Briefing Entered STATE FARM: Equifax Bid to Stay Proceedings in Fluker OK'd STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered SUMO LOGIC: M&A Continues Investigation of San Francisco Merger SYNGENTA CROP: Jones Planting Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme TAMKO BUILDING: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought TERRAN ORBITAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Class Action TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: HAPPF Bid to Seal Documents Granted in Part TEXAS CAPITAL: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action TIERNO CARE: Castro Seeks to Certify Class of Home Health Aides TRAEGER PELLET: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Seeks to File Information Under Seal TRAEGER PELLET: Yates, et al., File Bid for Class Certification TRAIL TAVERN: Approval of Conditional Class Certification Sought TRANS UNION: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to May 24 TRANS UNION: Equifax Bid to Stay Proceedings in Fluker OK'd TRENDLY INC: Boss Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Text Messages TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Woldanski Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. TWIN CITY FIRE: Martin Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. UMG RECORDINGS: Waite Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial UNITED STATES: Carr Wins Class Certification Bid UNTUCKIT LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Recorded Calls USA TODAY: Mathews Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class USAA GENERAL Case Schedule Deadlines in Drozdz Suit Stayed VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17 VITAMIN COTTAGE: More Time to File Replies Sought in Levine WELCH FOODS: Faces Flynn Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over Erroneous Impact Fees WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Faces Suit Over Leaked Sensitive Patient Data WIN WASTE: Motion to Dismiss Declarations as Evidence Filed YOLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bride Estate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. [*] Hogan Lovells Provides Update on EU Member Directive Adoption [*] West Tisbury, MA Eligible to Join Suit Over PFAS Contamination ********* 4JLJ LLC: Files 5th Cir. Appeal in Edwards FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------- 4JLJ, LLC, doing business as J4 Oilfield Services, has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Edwards, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 4JLJ, LLC, doing business as J4 Oilfield Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00299, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned Edwards v. 4JLJ, Case No. 23-90006, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 15, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOSHUA EDWARDS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James Moulton, Esq. MOULTON & PRICE, P.C. 109 State Highway 110 S. Whitehouse, TX 75791 Telephone: (903) 871-3163 Defendant-Petitioner 4JLJ, LLC, doing business as J4 Oilfield Services, is represented by: Nolan Cornelius Knight, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 500 N. Akard Street Ross Tower Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-7516 5TH BITE: Renton Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZEPHANEAH RENTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. 5TH BITE OF THE APPLE LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-62082-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for Rule 23 class certification and facilitation of court-authorized notice, appointment of plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, and approval of the proposed notice procedure and memorandum of law in support. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7Ws8C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10 th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott Bassman, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 110 Tower, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 703-3700 Facsimile: (954) 703-3701 E-mail: scott.bassman@csklegal.com melissa.scott@csklegal.com AA ACTION: New Jersey Dismisses FDCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------- AccountsRecovery reports that a District Court judge in New Jersey has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action for lack of standing, ruling that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to support her claim that the defendant failed to communicate to the credit bureaus that a debt was being disputed. A copy of the ruling in the case of Chapman v. AA Action Collection Co. can be accessed by clicking: https://www.accountsrecovery.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Chapman-v.-AA-Action-Collection.pdf Back in 2018, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter, seeking repayment of an unpaid medical debt. The letter indicated that if the debt was not disputed within 30 days, it may be reported to the credit reporting agencies. About a month later, the defendant sent another letter, informing her that this would be the final written notice before the debt was scheduled to be reported. Starting in November 2018, the defendant furnished information about the debt to TransUnion. Nearly two years later, the plaintiff faxed a letter to the defendant, disputing the debt and requesting verification and proof of the balance owed. The defendant denies receiving the dispute notification. On December 24 2020, the plaintiff reviewed her credit report, which did not indicate the debt was being disputed, but did state that the tradeline was "Date Updated: 12/18/2020." The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because it failed to report that the debt was being disputed. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment, but Judge William J. Martini of the District Court for the District of New Jersey first wanted to tackle whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. The crux of the plaintiff's argument is based on whether the defendant supplied information to the credit reporting agencies on December 18 or not. And there is no evidence to support what actually happened on December 18, Judge Martini determined. "Plaintiff's conclusion that AA reported the Debt to TransUnion on December 18, 2020 is based solely on the credit report's reference to 'Date Updated,' " Judge Martini wrote. "However, Plaintiff has proffered no evidence as to the source of that 'update' or the reason for any 'update' when no change in information is evident on the credit report. Even if the 'update' was from AA, it is conjecture as to when the 'update' was sent; there is nothing in the record that explains how TransUnion handles communications from debt collectors or agencies. In short, Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that sometime between October 22,2020 and December 18, 2020, AA disseminated to TransUnion any information regarding the Debt. Even assuming arguendo that AA did send the 'update,' there is no evidence of what information any such communication contained, namely that it failed to indicate that the Debt was disputed and hence defamatory." [GN] ABCM CORP: Underpays Registered Nurses, Greenfield Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY GREENFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABCM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00011 (N.D. Iowa, Feb. 14, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid straight time wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. The Plaintiff was employed by ABCM in Webster City, Iowa as a registered nurse from approximately April 2020 until November 2022. ABCM operates several assisted living and long-term care facilities providing healthcare services to its patients throughout the state of Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Sherinian, Esq. Melissa C. Hasso, Esq. SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM 111 E. Grand Ave., Suite 212 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 224-2079 Facsimile: (515) 224-2321 E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com mhasso@sherinianlaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com ALICO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Alico, Inc. ("Alico" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ALCO) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 4, 2021 and December 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 18, 2023. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at bschall@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Alico failed to maintain appropriate controls on disclosures and financial reporting. The Company miscalculated its deferred tax liabilities for a multi-year period. The Company would be forced to restate previously issued financial statements. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Alico, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] ALICO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alico, Inc. ('Alico' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ:ALCO) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and docketed under 23-cv-00107, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Alico securities between February 4, 2021 and December 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Alico securities during the Class Period, you have until April 18, 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. Alico, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an agribusiness and land management company in the U.S. The Company operates in two segments: (i) Alico Citrus; and (ii) Land Management and Other Operations. The Alico Citrus segment cultivates citrus trees to produce citrus for delivery to the processed and fresh citrus markets. The Land Management and Other Operations segment owns and manages land in Collier, Glades, and Hendry Counties, and also leases land for recreational and grazing purposes, conservation, and mining activities. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Alico had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company had improperly calculated Alico's deferred tax liabilities over a multi-year period; (iii) accordingly, the Company would likely be required to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; (iv) the foregoing would impede the timely completion of the audit of the Company's financial results in advance of its year-end earnings call; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 6, 2022, Alico issued a press release announcing that the Company was postponing its year-end earnings call. Specifically, the press release stated that 'additional time is required for completion of the audit of its financial results for the period ended September 30, 2022 by its independent registered public accounting firm.' On this news, Alico's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or 10.42%, to close at $26.29 per share on December 6, 2022. Then, on December 7, 2022, Alico issued a press release providing a further update on the delays that the Company faced in reporting fiscal year 2022 results and making the required associated filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC'). In the press release, the Company disclosed that '[t]he key item that is requiring such additional time involves evaluation of the proper amount of the Company's Deferred Tax Liability, particularly certain portions of that Deferred Tax Liability arising in prior fiscal years, including those going back to fiscal year 2019 or possibly several years before fiscal year 2019.' Finally, on December 13, 2022, Alico filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2022 (the '2022 10-K'). In the 2022 10-K, Alico 'restate[d] the Company's previously issued audited consolidated balance sheet, audited consolidated statements of changes in equity and related disclosures as of September 30, 2021 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2021 (the '2021 10-K') previously filed with the SEC and the Company's previously issued unaudited consolidated balance sheet, unaudited consolidated statements of changes in equity and related disclosures as of the end of each quarterly periods ended June 30, 2022, March 31, 2022, December 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 included in the Company's respective Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for each of the quarters then ended previously filed with the SEC (together with the 2021 10-K, the 'Financial Statements').' The Company also disclosed that '[o]n December 12, 2022, the audit committee (the 'Audit Committee') of the board of directors of the Company concluded that the Company's previously issued Financial Statements can no longer be relied upon due to an error identified during the completion of the 2022 10‑K.' Specifically, Alico stated that '[t]he error that led to the Audit Committee's conclusion relates to the calculation of the deferred tax liabilities for the fiscal years 2015 through 2019, which resulted in a cumulative reduction in the Company's deferred tax liability, and a corresponding cumulative increase in retained earnings, of approximately $2,512,000 on the Company's balance sheet as of September 30, 2022.' On this news, Alico's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or 9.53%, to close at $25.05 per share on December 14, 2022. 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 [GN] ALLIED FIRST: Gabe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- BART GABE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED FIRST BANK, S.B., and ALLIED FIRST BANCORP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00914 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 14, 2023) seeks relief for the Plaintiff and the collective class under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act to remedy Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation, and maintain and distribute accurate time records. Plaintiff Gabe was employed by the Defendants as a mortgage loan originator from July 2018 to January 3, 2023. He sold mortgages to individual customers primarily over the telephone and internet. He asserts that AFB treated him and other MLOs as exempt, commission only employees, and AFB refused to pay them minimum wages and overtime. Allied First Bank, S.B. is a state chartered savings bank with its principal office in Oswego, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq. DROST, GILBERT, ANDREW & APICELLA, LLC 4811 Emerson Ave Suite 110 Palatine, IL 60067 Telephone: (847) 934-6000 Facsimile: (847) 934-6040 E-mail: KCA@dgaalaw.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 100 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com - and - Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com ALLIED WASTE: Amendment of Class Status Deadlines Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEILA CROSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, D/B/A REPUBLIC SERVICES, Case No. 9:21-cv-00145-SEH (D. Mont.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the class certification deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall file a motion to May 8, 2023 certify a class on or before: -- The Defendant shall file its brief June 9, 2023 in opposition on or before: -- The Plaintiff shall file a reply June 23, 2023 brief on or before this date: Allied Waste provides non-hazardous solid waste management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZWror at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Kodadek, Esq. Leah Trahan, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 127 East Main St., Suite 301 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 317-7220 E-mail: jkodadek@parsonsbehle.com ltrahan@parsonsbehle.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Roth, Esq. Mac Morris, Esq. Kristen Meredith, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 305 South 4th Street East, Suite 100 Missoula, MT 59807-7099 Telephone: (406) 523-3600 E-mail: jroth@crowleyfleck.com wmorris@crowleyfleck.com kmeredith@crowleyfleck.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Agrees to Settle Skiers' Class Suit for $17.5-M ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Blevins at Colorado Sun reports that Alterra Mountain Co. has reached a $17.5 million settlement with skiers who bought the resort operator's Ikon Pass and sued when the company closed its resorts in March 2020 at the start of the global pandemic. A statement from Alterra Mountain Co. said the company made "the difficult decision" in March 2020 to shut down resort operations -- which include Winter Park and Steamboat ski areas in Colorado -- in conjunction with local, state and federal authorities. "Although we fully stand by the decision to pause operations in the face of unprecedented and unknown health and safety risks, we wanted to move beyond March 2020 and have agreed to a settlement resolution for our valued pass holders who were impacted," reads the statement from the resort operator, which directs impacted skiers to the website skipasssettlement.com for more information. Vail Resorts in April 2020 announced it would offer pass holders 20% to 80% of what they spent on the 2019-20 Epic Pass, depending on how many days the pass was used. That offer was a credit for the 2020-21 season pass. The company spent $106 million issuing credits to pass holders for the following season. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Wiretapping Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The suit styled BRIAN HEINZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. CV2023-0085, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00133 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges Amazon recorded chats customers initiated with Amazon through a customer-service chat tool on the Amazon.com website. The Plaintiff brings claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Ellen Parodi, Esq. Sancho Accorsi, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com ellenparodi@dwt.com sanchoaccorsi@dwt.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Kupferberg Antitrust Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- JILL A. KUPFERBERG and NANCY GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC. and JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01220 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023) is an action under the federal antitrust laws to restrain the anticompetitive conduct of American and JetBlue and to remedy harm done to consumers who purchased airline tickets from Defendants. On July 15, 2020, American and JetBlue entered into the Northeast Alliance Agreement. The Alliance is made up of distinct agreements between Defendants. According to the complaint, the two once-rival airlines have agreed to share their revenues and to coordinate which routes to fly, when to fly them, who will fly them, and what size planes to use on flights to and from four major airports: Boston Logan International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport. By coordinating their businesses in this way, American and JetBlue will effectively merge their operations on flights to and from the four airports -- which collectively account for two thirds of JetBlue's business. In so doing, the Alliance results in Plaintiffs and the members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for airline tickets. The complaint also alleges that American and JetBlue have reaped rich rewards since the companies began implementing the Alliance in early 2021. American is free to raise prices in the Northeast without fear of competition from its now-collaborator, JetBlue. JetBlue is free to raise prices without fear of competition from one of the most powerful market participants, American. Under the Alliance, the companies restrict the available ticket offerings and charge more than if they had to compete with one another, says the suit. American Airlines Group Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corporation are airline companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robin F. Zwerling, Esq. Susan Salvetti, Esq. Justin M. Tarshis, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rzwerling@zsz.com ssalvetti@zsz.com jtarshis@zsz.com AMERICAN TUNA: Scheduling Order Entered in Craig ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline, as follows: -- Counsel shall refer to the Civil Pretrial and Trial Procedures for the Honorable Robert S. Huie, which are accessible via the Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. -- The parties must file any stipulation regarding search protocol for electronically stored information on or before March 17, 2023. -- Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by March 31, 2023. -- A telephonic attorneys-only Case Management Conference is set for May 3, 4 2023, at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel is to arrange and initiate the conference call. -- Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all class discovery shall be completed on or before June 30, 2023. -- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or before July 31, 2023. -- Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. American Tuna provides high quality responsibly and sustainably sourced canned albacore tuna. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xnhAEd at no extra charge.[CC] AQ TEXTILES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE MORRISON, et al, v. AQ TEXTILES LLC, et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00983-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order extending all pending deadlines set by the Court's Order approving the Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report by 90 days: Mediation deadline April 18, 2023 Plaintiffs' expert report and April 20,2023 disclosures due Defendant's expert report and June 5, 2023 disclosures due Rebuttal reports due July 6, 2023 Discovery deadline July 17, 2023 Dispositive motions due August 16, 2023 Class certification motion due August 16, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YW5KNk at no extra charge.[CC] AUSTRALIA: Plaintiffs in NDIS Age Exclusions Lawsuit Speak Out -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that plaintiffs in class action speak out against rules barring them from scheme based on age and area they lived Six weeks, or 16km -- that's how far Helen Bonynge fell short of qualifying for the national disability insurance scheme. The retired counsellor was 63 when she became paralysed from the hip downwards due to radiation treatment for uterine cancer. If Bonynge, a mother of two and grandmother of four, developed the same disability at the same age today, she would qualify for the NDIS, despite the controversial age bar banning people aged 65 and over from applying. But Bonynge was diagnosed with paraplegia in 2015, two years before the NDIS was rolled out in her area - a twist of fate that would have major consequences for funding her care. "I got a letter back to say I was ineligible because I was going to be six weeks too old when it rolled out in [Sydney's] inner west," Bonynge says. "Even the social workers [preparing the NDIS] plan for me were shocked - they hadn't heard [of] that before. "I burst into tears. I was devastated. I couldn't believe it. "[If] I lived on the other side of the Harbour Bridge, in the northern beaches, it was rolled out in 2016, the year before. So if I lived there, I would have got it . . . I was astounded." Bonynge is the prospective lead plaintiff in a class action being assembled by Mitry Lawyers against the alleged unlawful exclusion to the NDIS of people aged 65 and over, for which 640 senior Australians have registered so far. The case, to be launched within weeks, seeks compensation for a decade of lower-quality disability support and, if successful, could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the annual cost of the NDIS. Paraplegia "turns your life upside down", Bonynge says. Her husband became her main carer -- a decision that would impact her ability to get disability support funded under the My Aged Care system, the NDIS alternative for over-65s. "They basically just looked at my husband and they put the gardening, cooking, shopping, caring hat on him and said, 'Right, well you can do all that stuff, so we don't need to give you money for that.' "The difference between the NDIS and My Aged Care is NDIS looks at you as an individual. "They assess that you need help . . . you need this, and they're going to give you the money to do those things and they want you to be as independent as possible and not a burden on your family. [And] you're not means tested." Bonynge was assessed as level two in the My Aged Care system, which can be worth up to $15,000 a year. But after the means test and provider fees, she was eligible for just $30.48 a week of government support -- which "wasn't even enough money for me to pay for a cleaner", she says. She declined, opting to pay for the costs of supports -- including a $19,000 wheelchair -- out of her own pocket. "There shouldn't really be a discrepancy between what someone on disability gets and what someone in aged care gets . . . We've all got a disability, we all have the same issues and the same needs." For some, the difference between the NDIS and My Aged Care is starker still. "There are people who are in bed 24/7 because they don't have enough money for carers to get them out of bed," Bonynge says. 'Embarrassing' exclusions Peter Freckleton, a member of the Post Polio Victoria board, tells Guardian Australia he applied for the NDIS two years ago, citing lifelong paralysis in both legs as a result of having contracted polio as an infant in the 1950s pandemic. "I couldn't walk unaided, I had to wear leg braces and crutches. There was no doubt about the disability . . . The only thing they [NDIS] objected to was my age." Freckleton says aged care payments were not "designed to deal with disability" -- which can require big lump-sum costs for assistive technologies -- forcing him to save payments over months to buy a wheelchair. "If I had been on the NDIS, [the supplier] would've signed up on the spot . . . [Instead] I arranged to accumulate aged care payments . . . I had to wait to save enough." The proposed court case has two main arguments. First, that the age bar was inconsistent with the convention on the rights of people with disabilities, which could render it invalid because the commonwealth relied on its external affairs power to legislate the NDIS. Second, that the staggered rollout of the NDIS by state and by area could have breached the constitution's ban on discrimination based on state of residency. Rick Mitry of Mitry Lawyers says it was a "really odd situation" that people were excluded based on different rollout dates. "I think it's embarrassing . . . that the government would be discriminating against a certain sector of the Australian community which cannot help itself." Prospective plaintiffs are going without new equipment or supports, he says - for example, being forced to sleep on a 20-year-old mattress. Case could be biggest since robodebt Another proponent of the case is a former senior public servant, Roger Beale, who had childhood polio. He says the case "has significant budgetary implications and impacts thousands of disabled people and their families". "It could be the biggest and most morally embarrassing class action the commonwealth has faced since robodebt," he says. The robodebt case, brought on behalf of welfare recipients who received computer-generated debt notices using unlawful income averaging, cost the commonwealth $1.8bn. Beale estimates the cost of the NDIS exclusion at $800m a year, due to NDIS recipients receiving tens of thousands more in support on average than My Aged Care recipients. That figure is based on an assumption that a "significant proportion" of the 140,000 people on the highest level of aged-care package are "seriously and permanently disabled and would have been eligible for NDIS support but for the age exclusion in the act", he says. When Guardian Australia revealed the proposed class action in September, the NDIS minister, Bill Shorten, blamed the Coalition for the fact aged care had "fallen in a rut" since the NDIS was set up in 2013. "There are people in the community who say that the quality of disability care after the age of 65 is inferior to the quality of disability care before 65," Shorten told reporters in Canberra. "I think they have a point." "[The] NDIS, despite all of its challenges, is still a scheme that looks better for people in aged care than what they have." Shorten said he would not comment specifically on the case but said: "There is a challenge for disability care for over 65, whether or not the solution's an NDIS - which is very expensive - or an improvement in the quality of disability care and aged care. That will be a matter for the whole of the government." In November the minister said: "We want to make sure that people with disability who are over 65 get proper care." But he said it was parliament's "explicit intent" for the NDIS to cover only those under 65. "So in short . . . I get the class action and we'll see where that goes," he said. "But for the substance of the issue, NDIS is for people under 65, aged care for people over 65." A government spokesperson said: "People who acquire a disability before the age of 65 who are NDIS participants can continue to access the NDIS after the age of 65." A total of 2,156 older Australians who received state-based disability services "were able to continue with equivalent services" through the continuity of support program. "People who acquire a disability over the age of 65 are not eligible for the NDIS or [continuity of support]," the spokesperson said. "The government is focused on implementing reforms to the aged care system to better support this group of people." Mitry said government suggestions that disability support in aged care could be improved were "fairly vague". "I don't know that we're going to be able to help the members of the class through the generosity of the government. We have to fight for it, unfortunately." [GN] BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Scheduling Order Entered in Rojas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITO RAMIREZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION, a Montana corporation; BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Montana corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00533-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S. Crawford entered a scheduling order through the filing of any class certification motions. 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before February 17, 2023. 2. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated but all class discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before April 21, 2023. 3. Any discovery motions related to class certification shall be brought no later than May 19, 2023. 4. A motion for class certification shall be filed no later than June 16, 2023. 5. A telephonic Case Management Conference (CMC) has been scheduled for August 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. Barnard is a large heavy-civil construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YUqZyJ at no extra charge.[CC] BAYAMON MEDICAL: Umpierre, et al., File Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA MARIA HERNANDEZ UMPIERRE, and BETZAIDA SANTOS PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYAMON MEDICAL CENTER, a medical facility, PUERTO RICO WOMEN AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, a medical facility, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01237-DRD (D.P.R.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. certifying Plaintiffs' Proposed Class; and 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. On May 21, 2019, Bayamon suffered a ransomware attack, where unauthorized third-party hackers gained access to the personal identifying information ("PII") and private health information ("PHI") -- including the names, dates of birth, demographic information, clinical information, financial information, diagnosis information, and Social Security numbers -- of approximately 522,000 of its patients. Ransomware is a form of malware designed to gain unauthorized access to and encrypt files on a device or server, rendering any files and the systems that rely on them unusable. On May 21, 2019, the Defendant suffered a ransomware attack on its computer systems, wherein a large number of its data files were encrypted and rendered inaccessible by unauthorized third-party hackers. As a result of this attack, hospital staff were left unable to access patient information for some time. On July 29, 2019, Defendant began sending out data breach notices to affected patients to inform them that their data had been implicated in the breach. Defendant claimed in those notices that patient information was not accessed during the breach, only encrypted. However, this is simply impossible. Hackers could not have encrypted Defendant's data without gaining access to the data. The Defendant breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to implement the reasonable and adequate data security safeguards it had promised. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered damages. Bayamon Medical is an acute care hospital and is under proprietary ownership. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YW1Of9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Indiano, Esq. Jeffrey M. Williams, Esq. Vanesa Vicéns-Sánchez, Esq. INDIANO & WILLIAMS, P.S.C. 207 del Parque Street, Third Floor San Juan, Puerto Rico 00912 Telephone: (787) 641-4545 Facsimile: (787) 641-4544 - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 BENEFYTT TECH: Griffin, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN, et al., v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62371-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting their motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing them as class representatives; and 3. appointing Whatley Kallas, LLP and Matt Carroll Law, LLC as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(c) and (g). The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes and subclass pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): -- American National 1 Class "All individuals who purchased Benefytt's limited benefit in-demnity plans or short term medical plans through American National within the applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fees and/or premiums that were not completely recovered through a refund or chargeback." -- Assurance Class "All individuals who purchased Benefytt's limited benefit indemnity plans or short term medical plans through Assurance within the applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fees and/or premiums that were not completely recovered through a refund or chargeback." -- Benefytt Class "All individuals who purchased limited benefit indemnity plans or short term medical plans directly from Benefytt within the applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fees and/or premiums that were not completely recovered through a refund or chargeback." -- Priority Insurance 2 Class "All individuals who purchased Benefytt's limited benefit indemnity plans or short term medical plans through Priority Insurance within the applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fees and/or premiums that were not completely recovered through a refund or chargeback." -- Medical Expense Subclass "All individuals within any of the above Classes who incurred uncovered medical expense(s)." The case is one of several actions brought by private litigants and government agencies against Benefytt and its business partners to challenge their deceptive marketing and sale of health insurance policies as providing comprehensive health insurance, such as that provided by major medical health insurance policies that complied with the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA"), when, in reality they were selling "limited benefit indemnity plans" and "short term medical plans" that did not satisfy the ACA's mandate, along with various add-on or "ancillary" products to make the health insurance seem more comprehensive than it actually was. The Plaintiffs in this case allege that Benefytt and its marketing partners, or "distributors," including Defendant Assurance, Simple Health, 4 American National, Priority Insurance and others, marketed health insurance policies as comprehensive medical insurance but instead sold non-ACA compliant limited benefit indemnity plans and short term insurance plans along with various add-on products like discount cards, association memberships and accidental health insurance to make the health insurance seem more comprehensive than it really was. The Plaintiffs further allege that the policies left consumers with little or no insurance, no coverage for preexisting conditions and prescription drugs and minimal coverage for other services. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of others similarly situated, assert claims against Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Benefytt provides software and insurance solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lxN3ku at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Nicholas Dorman, Esq. Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ndorman@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Matt Carroll, Esq. MATT CARROLL LAW, LLC Vestavia, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 240-2586 E-mail: matt@mattcarrollfirm.com - and - F. Inge Johnstone, Esq. J. Dennis Gallups, Esq. WETTERMARK KEITH, LLC 100 Grandview Place, Suite 530 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205)795-3695 Facsimile: (205) 994-7291 E-mail: ijohnstone@wkfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Val Leppertc, Esq. David L. Balser, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. Timothy H. Lee, Esq. Spencer M. Diamond, Esq. Elliott Foote, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 E-mail: vleppert@kslaw.com dbalser@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com tlee@kslaw.com sdiamond@kslaw.com efoote@kslaw.com - and - Martha Rosa Mora, Esq. AVILA RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ MENA & FERRI 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse 1225 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 779-3567 E-mail: mmora@arhmf.com - and - Catherine B. Schumacher Vincent A. Sama, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-3375 E-mail: cshumacher@seyfarth.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bell Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kenneth Bell, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Final Judgment dated January 9, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH BELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-246-RP, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Kenneth Bell, Sherry Dabbs-Laury, Charlene Dirks, Wendy Brown, and Tonnie Walker-Beck filed the class action lawsuit against Defendants Cal-Maine Foods; Trillium Farm Holdings, LLC; Centrum Valley Farms, L.P.; and Lucerne Foods, Inc. They allege violations of Section 17.46(b)(27) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared a state of emergency on March 13, 2020, and extended it for an additional 30 days on April 12, May 12, June 11, and July 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs are Texas consumers who purchased eggs from various Texas retailers during the state of emergency. The Plaintiffs allege that the eggs were produced or distributed by the Defendants, some of the largest egg producers in Texas and the United States. They allege that between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and March 30, 2020, the price of eggs nearly tripled in Texas, from $1 to almost $3 per dozen. They further allege that the Defendants unjustifiably raised the price of eggs to an "exorbitant or excessive price" during the declared state of emergency and by participating in a price spike in the Urner-Barry Index, in violation of Section 17.46(b)(27) of the TDTPA. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower recommended that the District Court grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action complaint and dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge Robert Pitman entered an Order and Final Judgment on January 9, 2023, granting Defendants' June 28, 2022 and August 23, 2022 motions to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Bell v. Cal-Maine Foods, Case No. 23-50112, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Feb. 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Kenneth Bell, Fire Marshal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS L.L.P. 2154 Highland Avenue Birminghanm, AL 36205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Defendants-Appellees Cal-Maine Foods, Incorporated, et al., are represented by: Chad E. Stewart, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-5006 Telephone: (713) 890-5000 - and - David Paul Blanke, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. 200 W. 6th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 542-8622 - and - Craig A. Duewall, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, L.L.P. 300 W. 6th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 320-7260 CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Bid Denied, Plaintiffs Take Options ----------------------------------------------------------------- sportsnet.ca reports that the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Canadian Hockey League, the country's three major junior circuits and its teams related to disturbing allegations of sexual assault and torture suffered by teenage players says his clients are considering "various options" after a class-action request was denied. In a decision earlier this month, an Ontario Superior Court judge described the "horrific and despicable and unquestionably criminal actions" the former players suffered at the hands of teammates and staff during initiations. But while Justice Paul Perell accepted the evidence, he turned down a request to certify a class-action lawsuit against the leagues and their clubs. The plaintiffs, including former NHL player Daniel Carcillo, can still appeal the decision or launch individual lawsuits against the leagues and teams. Lawyer James Sayce told The Canadian Press in an email that regardless of the path forward "the plaintiffs will ensure that a meaningful avenue for access to justice will be created for those who were abused in major junior hockey." The suit originally filed in 2020 covers events in the Ontario Hockey League, Western Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League going back to 1975. Perell's 103-page ruling quoted from sworn statements by unidentified players describing what they experienced when some were as young as 15. One player, identified only as FF, said he was sodomized with a hockey stick as part of a rookie initiation -- an assault at least one other player said also happened to him. "I have lived with the abuse I suffered," the player said. "Coming out with my story has been extremely difficult but (I) am telling it because I do not want any other child to go through what I did." Perell wrote in his Feb. 3 decision the evidence established that players were "tortured, forcibly confined, shaved, stripped, drugged, intoxicated, physically and sexually assaulted; raped, gang raped, forced to physically and sexually assault other teammates." The judge said they were "compelled to sexually assault and gang rape young women invited to team parties, forced to eat or drink urine, saliva, semen, feces, or other noxious substances." Perrel added players were also "forced to perform acts of self-injury, forced to perform acts of bestiality." He accepted the former players' evidence and described the main plaintiffs -- Carcillo, Garrett Taylor and Stephen Quirk -- as "genuine heroes." But the judge denied their request to certify a class-action lawsuit after determining they failed to present a workable plan to litigate. "It is not conceivable that such a plan could be fashioned to deal in one class action with the evil that has persisted for half a century in amateur hockey," Perell wrote. The judged added in his ruling that "the immediate lawsuit is about egregious harms perpetrated on children and the persons or entities at fault should be punished." But he added "even children know and in their heart Messrs. Carcillo, Taylor, and Quirk in their noble pursuit of cleaning hockey must know it is wrong and fundamentally unjust to punish teams for something that somebody else did." Perell said the proposed class-action lawsuit wasn't certifiable because the fundamental premise was the CHL, WHL, OHL, QMHL and 60 member teams "are jointly and severally liable for each other's wrongdoings regardless of whether the particular team participated." "Moreover, if the premise were correct (but it is not), the proposed class action would fail all the other certification criteria except the identifiable class criterion," the judge wrote. "An abused hockey player has only individual causes of action against his own team and his own leagues." [GN] CAPITAL PLUS: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Expert Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Greathouse, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants move the Court to strike Plaintiffs Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall, Barbara Myles, Cori Pericho, John Pinkney, Joshua Smith, and Alicia Mena's class certification Expert Reports in Support of their class certification motion. The Defendants also move to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' proposed experts Jason Koontz, William Manger, Steven Feinstein, and William Briggs from any hearing on class certification. The grounds for the relief requested are set forth in Defendants' supporting brief, which accompanies the motion. Capital Plus Financial is a certified community development financial institution. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k63Lai at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Katherine G. Treistman, Esq. Andrew D. Bergman, Esq. Eric N. Whitney, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002–2755 Telephone: (713) 576–2400 Facsimile: (713) 576–2499 E-mail: Katherine.Treistman@arnoldporter.com Andrew.Bergman@arnoldporter.com Eric.Whitney@arnoldporter.com - and - Michael P. Lynn, Esq. Christopher J. Schwegmann LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 981–3800 Facsimile: (214) 981–3839 E-mail: mlynn@lynnllp.com cschwegmann@lynnllp.com CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: M&A Continues Probe of Abbott Lab Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSII), relating to its proposed sale to Abbott Laboratories. Under the terms of the agreement, CSII shareholders are expected to receive $20.00 in cash per common share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cardiovascular-systems-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN] CARECORE HEALTH: Conditional Certification Ruling Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRE'ANYA GUDGER, v. CARECORE HEALTH LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00239-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion to stay a ruling on plaintiff's conditional certification motion; 2. staying a ruling on the conditional certification motion pending the outcome in Clark v. A&L Home Ccare & Training; 3. declaring that equitable tolling shall apply to the statute of limitations governing plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act claims; and 4. requiring the parties to inform the court when the sixth circuit reaches its decision. The Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive. Even if district courts throughout the Sixth Circuit apply the two-phase inquiry, that will prove irrelevant to the present case if the Sixth Circuit were to adopt a contrary test. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees, alleging that Defendant violated the FLSA, and Ohio law, in not affording them full pay for the hours they worked while in Defendant's employment. CareCore Health is family owned and operated, and provides individualized care plans for our valued community. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xnZYZ1 at no extra charge.[CC] CASE WESTERN: Lozada Bid to Extend Case Management Schedule Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. Case Western Reserve University, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order denying the Plaintiff's requests to substantially enlarge the case management schedule further by bifurcating expert reports on class certification and class merits, and to further enlarge the time for expert discovery, dispositive motions, and other deadlines. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not shown good cause to bifurcate expert reports nor to enlarge case management deadlines in full as proposed." However, the Court grants a final amendment of the Case Management Order and sets the following revised deadlines: -- Fact discovery: March 24, 2023 -- Plaintiff expert reports: March 24, 2023 -- The Defendant expert reports: April 25, 2023 -- Depositions of experts: June 26, 2023 -- All fact and expert discovery: June 26, 2023 -- Motions for Class July 24, 2023 Certification and Summary Judgment: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Case Western Reserve University is a private research university in Cleveland, Ohio.[CC] CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Settlement Agreement in Foon Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE FOON, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01420-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order as follows: 1. The court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement Agreement incorporated in full by this reference and made a part of this order granting preliminary approval: (1) is the product of informed and non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) falls 18 within the range of possible approval; and (4) the Class Notice is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in compliance with all applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the California and United States Constitutions. 2. The court also finds that, on a preliminary basis, the Settlement is fair, just, adequate, and reasonable to all members of the Class when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to class action certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals of rulings. Good cause appearing, the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. 3. As part of preliminary approval, the court finds for settlement purposes only, that the class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and conditionally certifies the class for the purposes of settlement as: "all California-based employees of Defendants employed from June 20, 2015 through July 16, 2021 ("Class Period") as follows: (1) all non-exempt remote employees who had work-from-home arrangements that started prior to March 20, 2020; and (2) all exempt remote employees who had work-from-home arrangements that started prior to March 2020. 4. The court approves and appoints plaintiff as the Representative Plaintiff of the Class for settlement purposes only, subject to Final Approval. Any Settlement Class Member who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement by submitting a Request to be Excluded by the Objection/Exclusion Deadline may, but need not, enter an appearance in this Action through his or her own attorney. Settlement Class Members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented by Class Counsel. 5. The court approves and appoints plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only, subject to Final Approval. 6. The court finds the proposed class notice and the proposed method of dissemination reasonably and adequately advises the class of the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 15 23(c)(2)(B). 7. The court finds the mailing to the class members' present or last known address 17 an effective method of notifying class members of their rights with respect to the proposed settlement. the Plaintiff Foon brings this putative class action against defendants Centene Management Company, LLC, Centene Corporation, Cenpatico Behavioral Health LLC, Envolve Holdings, Inc., and Nebraska Total Care, Inc., alleging class violations of the Labor Code including failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse, failure to furnish accurate itemized 22 wage statement, and violations of the Business and Profession Code section 17200. The Plaintiff Foon brought this putative wage-and-hour and Private Factual and Procedural Background Attorney General ("PAGA") class action against defendants. The Plaintiff's position was classified as exempt at the time she was first employed by Cenpatico. THe Plaintiff a series of promotions until she became Utilization Manager while working in Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40ZYOQL at no extra charge.[CC] CENTURYLINK INC: Court OK's Bultemeyer Renewed Bid for Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, v. CenturyLink Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer's renewed motion for class certification. The Court further ordered that: -- pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a class defined as: "every individual in the United States about whom CenturyLink obtained a consumer credit report using the personal information the individual entered into CenturyLink's ecommerce website from November 14, 2012 through November 14, 2014 and who did not sign an arbitration agreement or class action waiver with CenturyLink;" -- the Law Offices of Andrew J. Brown and the Thompson Consumer Law Group are appointed as class counsel. -- pursuant to the Court's January 8, 2021 Order, a motion to approve a class notice shall be filed no later than March 6, 2023, 3 or if this Order is appealed, no later than 30 days from when the petition is denied or the Ninth Circuit issues an order. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. On April 6, 2014, Plaintiff Bultemeyer accessed CenturyLink's website and began an online order for residential internet services. The Defendant's online order process involved five steps. The Plaintiff completed the first four steps, which included entering her address and other personal information, selecting which service options she wanted to purchase, and clicking a checkbox indicating acceptance of terms and conditions. CenturyLink is a global technology company that offers communications, network services, security, and cloud solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lAVLhL at no extra charge.[CC] CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Noble -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noble v. Champlain National Bank, Case No. 8:22-cv-01130-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: (1) The deadlines set in this scheduling order supersede the deadlines set forth in Fed. R. Civ. p.26(a)(3) and are firm and will not be extended, even by stipulation of the parties, absent good cause. (2) Venue Motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 7.1 (a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the assigned Magistrate Judge. (3) Jurisdiction motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of the Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 7.1 (a)(1) (unless a party who is not an attorney is appearing pro se, in which case L.R. 7.1 (b) (2) should be followed) and are to be made returnable before Judge Suddaby. (4) Any motion to join any person as a party to the action shall be made on or before March 8, 2023. (5) Any motion to amend any pleading in the action shall be made on or before April 20, 2023. (6) All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Dec. 8, 2023. Champlain National operates as a full-service bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0wsjv at no extra charge.[CC] CHEGG INC: Faces Stansell Suit Over Undisclosed Business Model -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN STANSELL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL ROSENWEIG, RICHARD SARNOFF, RENEE BUDIG, SARAH BOND, PAUL LEBLANC, MARNE LEVINE, MARCELA MARTIN, TED SCHLEIN, MELANIE WHELAN, JOHN E. YORK, and DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0180-PAF (Del. Ch., Feb. 14, 2023) is a direct stockholder class action brought against Chegg's board of directors and Deloitte & Touche LLP in connection with material misstatements and omissions made pertaining to Chegg's primary business model when seeking the vote of Plaintiff and other members of the Class on pertinent issues such as electing the director Defendants and appointing Deloitte as the independent auditor, who are the breaching parties. According to the complaint, instead of making appropriate disclosures about the true state of Chegg's business, the Board misled Plaintiff and the Class by knowingly omitting material facts about Chegg's primary business model in the proxy soliciting votes for the election of the directors and the appointment of Deloitte. The alleged conduct made Director Defendants gain profit from the Company's improper business model, as they receive most of their compensation through stock, says the suit. Further, Deloitte aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty by carrying the Board's misstatements forward and knowingly failing to report the true Chegg business model in Chegg's annual audit. That failure rendered Chegg's audit a material misstatement that affirmed to Plaintiff and the Class that Chegg's primary business model was not cheating, when, in fact, it was, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Stansell is a holder of Chegg common stock. He has continuously held shares of Chegg common stock since at least January 2017. Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt M. Heyman, Esq. Gillian L. Andrews, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7300 - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 CHI HEALTH: Nurses to Receive $800,000 Settlement Over On-Call Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lori Pilger of Lincoln Journal Star reports that nurses and CHI Health reach $800K settlement in class-action case over on-call pay. A class-action lawsuit brought by nurses against CHI Health over remote, on-call work they were required to perform without full compensation has resulted in an $800,000 settlement. U.S. District Judge Brian C. Buescher entered the final judgment February 14, 2023, dismissing the case that started four years ago when seven nurses at CHI St. Elizabeth in Lincoln sued the regional health care organization based in Omaha. In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, attorney Kathleen Neary alleged the hospital had violated state and federal wage laws by not paying enough for on-call work and overtime for doing things like answering phone calls, emails and texts. She said through October 2018 nurses were paid only $2 an hour for on-call work on weekdays, answering calls, emails and texts related to patient services and occasionally answering patient questions, and 50 cents more an hour on weekends. In November 2018, the rate went up to $3 an hour for 50 or fewer on-call hours and $4 for those who work more than 50 on-call hours. That was well below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour; and Nebraska's minimum wage of $9 an hour at the time. (It since has increased to $10.50.) Neary said CHI also wasn't paying nurses for overtime when their on-call hours plus regular hours at the hospital put them at more than 40 hours per week. On-call shifts lasted 14 hours. Neary said the nurses lost wages, contributions to retirement plans and interest on both as a result. And she asked the judge to certify that a class action could be brought against CHI on behalf of them and other current and former employees like them, which ultimately was approved. Lincoln attorney Vince Powers, who also represented the nurses, said the amount each class member will receive depends upon how many eligible nurses make a valid claim. He said on Nov. 8, notice of the settlement was sent to 2,643 current or former nurses at CHI Health locations in Nebraska between Feb. 6, 2015, and April 11, 2022. By Dec. 21, 2022 only 168 had filed claims, though they have until March 6, 2023 to submit a claim at chiwagelitigation.com. According to the settlement approved February 14, 2023, the $800,000 in monetary relief amounted to about 47% of the maximum wages owed to the class, which "compares favorably to results achieved in other wage and hour class action suits approved in this circuit." The order said the settlement avoids significant expense, delay and the likelihood of continued litigation that would be complex, expensive and lengthy. In addition to the $800,000 fund, the agreement also includes $96,000 in litigation expenses and just under $654,000 in attorneys' fees. Asked for comment February 15, 2023, a spokesperson for CHI Health said, as always, CHI Health appreciates all of the work their nurses do. "They are on the front lines of patient care and core to our mission. We pay our nurses generously and go to great lengths to ensure compliance with all applicable wage and hour laws," Taylor Miller said. She said although they consistently denied the core allegations in the lawsuit, "CommonSpirit (CHI's parent company) made the business decision to resolve the case. We look forward to having this matter behind us and continuing to execute on our mission, vision and values." [GN] CHRIST HOSPITAL: Doe Patient Data Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHRIST HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. A2300516, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Feb. 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00087-SJD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of all Ohio citizens who are TCH patients and exchanged communications at TCH's website. The Plaintiff claims that his and putative class members' private health information is improperly transmitted to Facebook when they use the patient portal. The Christ Hospital is a not-for-profit acute care facility in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William A. Posey, Esq. James E. Burke, Esq. Stacy A. Cole, Esq. Bryce J. Yoder, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6400 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: wposey@kmklaw.com jburke@kmklaw.com scole@kmklaw.com byoder@kmklaw.com CHRISTIAN DIOR: Health Care Exemption Plea in BIPA Suit Reaffirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle R. Fath, Kristin L. Bryan and David J. Oberly of The National Law Review report that Federal Court re-affirms health care exemption as complete defense to BIPA class action claims. For over two years now, online retailers -- such as cosmetics and eyewear brands -- that utilize virtual try-on ("VTO") tools have faced a barrage of class action litigation alleging that their technology violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). During this period, a defense has emerged for the targets of VTO suits and online eyewear retailers in particular -- BIPA's health care exemption. Relying on this exemption, a major apparel brand recently defeated a class action suit alleging it improperly collected website visitors' face geometry scans through its VTO tool in violation of Illinois's biometric privacy law. The opinion re-affirms the strength of this defense to facilitate complete dismissals of BIPA class actions involving eyewear brands involved in the defense of VTO biometric privacy class claims. The defendant, an apparel brand that sells eyewear (as well as other products), provides shoppers a VTO tool on its site, which allows users to virtually "try on" eyewear frames to see how they look on them prior to making a purchase by virtually placing the frames on the user's face. Delma Warmack-Stillwell filed suit against an apparel brand, alleging that the retailer's VTO tool ran afoul of BIPA Sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(c) -- relating to the law's privacy policy, data retention, and informed consent requirements, as well as its prohibition on selling or otherwise profiting from individuals' biometric data. In response, the apparel brand moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Civil Rule 16(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a cognizable BIPA claim against it because the law's general health care exemption -- which provides that "information captured from a patient in a health care setting" is excluded from the definition of "biometric identifiers" and "biometric information" -- served as a complete defense to liability against the apparel brand. The court agreed, finding the plaintiff's BIPA claims to be barred as a matter of law under the general health care exemption. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that whether the exemption applied to the apparel brand depended on whether the plaintiff, in using the VTO tool, was a "patient" in a "health care setting." Because BIPA did not define these terms, the court ascertained their meaning by looking to their respective dictionary definitions. The court first found that the plaintiff met the definition of a "patient," which is defined as "an individual awaiting or under medical care or treatment" or "the recipient of any various personal services." The court reasoned that under an objective application of the exemption's text, sunglasses -- even if non-prescription -- protect one's eyes from the sun and are Class I medical devices under the Food and Drug Administration's regulations. Thus, by using the VTO tool to try on sunglasses, the plaintiff was “an individual awaiting . . . medical care," and therefore a "patient," because the tool facilitated the provision of a medical device that protected vision. The court also concluded that use of the VTO tool constituted "health care," defined as "efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals," as the VTO tool facilitated the purchase of sunglasses to wear on one's face -- which the court noted is exactly the use that fulfills that product's medical purpose. The court further highlighted the fact that its conclusion comported with the one reached by other courts that have considered whether BIPA's general health care exemption applies in the context of eyewear VTO tools, namely, Svoboda v. Frames For Am., Inc., No. 21 CV 5509, 2022 WL 4109719 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2022), and Vo v. VSP Retail Dev. Holding, Inc., No. 19 CV 7189, 2020 WL 1445605 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2020). In so doing, the court noted that both the Svoboda and Vo courts recognized that the VTO tools at issue in those disputes fell within the exemption, despite the fact they were also used for virtually trying on non-prescription sunglasses. Taken together, because -- in using the VTO tool -- the plaintiff was a patient receiving a health care service in a health care setting, BIPA's general health care exemption was applicable to the claims asserted against the apparel brand, precluding the company from being held liable under Illinois's biometric privacy statute for its alleged collection and use of website visitors' biometric identifiers or biometric information. As such, the court granted the apparel brand's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. As indicated above, Warmack-Stillwell is not the first eyewear VTO biometric privacy class action to be dismissed outright under the law's general health care exemption. Of note, both the Svoboda and Vo courts rejected the argument that the health care exemption was inapplicable because the plaintiffs were never patients of the eyewear retailers and never sought or received any health care or treatment from those entities. Taken together, Warmack-Stillwell, Svoboda, and Vo demonstrate BIPA's health care exemption as a defense, which can serve as a valuable tool for eyewear brands in the defense of BIPA claims to defeat class action lawsuits alleging purported violations of Illinois's stringent biometric privacy statute. At the same time, Warmack-Stillwell demonstrates the broad scope of the health care exemption to procure outright dismissals in a wide range of BIPA disputes -- even those outside the VTO context -- through the assertion of this defense, where the facts underlying the litigation involve prescription or non-prescription medical devices (such as eyewear). [GN] CIGNA HEALTH: Joint Stipulation to Extend Deadlines OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary son SJ; LW as the representative of her beneficiary spouse MW; and, DS, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and MULTIPLAN, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Honorable Edward J. Davila entered an order on the Parties joint stipulation and order to extend deadlines, as follows: Current Deadline New Deadline Opposition to Class Mar. 6, 2023 Mar. 27, 2023 Certification with Any Supporting Expert Reports and material Reply in Support of Apr. 10, 2023 May 16, 2023 Class Certification The Parties further stipulate and agree that Defendants may file a combined 40-page memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and that Plaintiffs may receive five additional pages for their reply memorandum, for a total of 20 pages. Hearing on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion continued to June 15, 2023, at 9:00 AM. Cigna Health operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40YHZpq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq. Joshua B. Simon, Esq. Warren Haskel, Esq. Dmitriy Tishyevich, Esq. Caroline Incledon, Esq. Chelsea Cosillos, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: (310) 277-4110 Facsimile: (310) 277-4730 E-mail: wdonovan@mwe.com jsimon@mwe.com whaskel@mwe.com dtishyevich@mwe.com cincledon@mwe.com ccosillos@mwe.com CITRIX SYSTEMS: Class Action Settlement in Boger Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN L. BOGER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-01234-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2. preliminarily certifying the Rule 23 Class: "all persons within the United States to whom the Defendant and/or a third party acting on its behalf: (a) made one or more telephone calls to their cellular telephone number; (b) made two or more telephone calls while the call recipient's number was on the National Do Not Call Registry; and/or (c) made one or more calls after asking Defendant to stop calling." 3. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, including the long-form notice, postcard notice, claim form, and opt-out form attached to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Court preliminarily approves: 1. Plaintiff, Dan L. Borger, as the representative of the Rule 23 Class; 2. Johnathan P. Misny, Esq. and Brian K. Murphy, Esq., with the law firm of Murray, Murphy, Moul, & Basil, LLP, and Anthony I. Paronich, with the law firm of Paronich Law, P.C., as Class Counsel for the Class; 3. preliminarily approves A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator; and 4. preliminarily approves the Settlement Administrator's costs of claims administration in an amount not to exceed $509,617.90. It is further ordred that: 1. Any Class member who has not submitted a timely written exclusion request and who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, the Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award, or the Service Payment must deliver written objections to the Settlement Administrator (by postal mail or email) or the Court no later than 90 calendar days after the entry of this Order. 2. Any Class member who timely submits a written objection has the option to appear at the final approval hearing, either in person or through personal counsel, to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement or the proposed settlement, the Service Payment, or to the Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award. 3. Settlement Class Members may elect not to be part of the Class and not to be bound by this Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff, Dan L. Borger, brings an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to settle certain claims on behalf of himself, and a potential class of similarly situated individuals, against Defendant Citrix. Citrix is an American multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company that provides server, application and desktop virtualization, networking, software as a service, and cloud computing technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jRfZnf at no extra charge.[CC] CLUB 360: Bazarganfard Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Premature ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edwin Bazarganfard, et al., v. Club 360 LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion and amended motion for class certification as premature because the pleadings have not been resolved in the action. The Court said, "No motion for class certification shall be filed until an answer to the operative complaint has been filed. To the extent a further motion for class certification is subsequently filed after the pleadings have been resolved, the motion, opposition, and reply shall not reference prior briefs or evidence filed in connection with the original or amended motion for class certification." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I09Kp6 at no extra charge.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sued Over Contamination in Cleaning Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that Fabuloso class action alleges products contain dangerous pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria in the case-captioned Jeannie Patora, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-01118, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Colgate-Palmolive has been hit with a class action lawsuit over its Fabuloso products. The plaintiff says the company did not advise consumers that the products could be contaminated with a harmful bacteria. Colgate-Palmolive has been hit with a class action lawsuit just days after it announced a massive nationwide recall of Fabuloso cleaning products. Plaintiff Jeannie Patora filed the class action lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive Co. on Feb. 9 in a New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The lawsuit seeks to remedy the "deceptive and misleading business practices" of the company with respect to its Fabuloso cleaning products, it says. According to the lawsuit, Colgate-Palmolive broke the law by omitting on its packaging that using certain Fabuloso products could increase their risk of contracting invasive infections, due to the contamination. On Feb. 8, Colgate-Palmolive issued a recall on millions of Fabuloso multipurpose cleaning products as they may contain pseudomonas species bacteria that can cause serious infections. The recall applies to about 4.9 million units of the products in the United States. People with weakened immune systems, external medical devices or underlying lung conditions who are exposed to the bacteria face a risk of serious infection that may require medical treatment, the recall stated, adding that the bacteria can enter the body through the nose, eyes or a break in the skin. The company offered a full refund; however, the consumer lawsuit is seeking damages on top of the cost of the product. Sale of contaminated Fabuloso products was 'egregious,' lawsuit states The fact that the products contained harmful bacteria "is egregious," Patora says, especially because people are "spreading this bacteria all over their homes by using a product that is supposed to clean their home." As a result, the product was not worth customers' money, the lawsuit states. Patora seeks to represent anyone who bought a recalled Fabuloso product nationwide, plus a New York subclass. She is suing for violations of New York General Business law and federal warranty law and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. The plaintiff is represented by The Sultzer Law Group and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Padilla Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Padilla federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron. This purported federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 30, 2019. It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock. On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January 21, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class complaint on March 23, 2020, and the District Court denied that motion on August 17, 2022. The Company believes this matter is without merit and will vigorously defending this case. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- is a healthcare company whose affiliates provide healthcare services, developing and operating healthcare delivery systems in 47 distinct markets across 16 states. The Company's subsidiaries own or lease 79 affiliated hospitals with approximately 13,000 beds and operate more than 1,000 sites of care, including physician practices, urgent care centers, freestanding emergency departments, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers and ambulatory surgery centers. Shares in Community Health Systems, Inc. are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CYH." CONTACTUS LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pyfrom v. ContactUS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04293 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order -- Class Certification Motion due by Sept. 4, 2023. -- Fact Discovery is due by Sept. 4, 2023. -- Dispositive motions due by Oct. 19, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH: Dyous, et al., Seek Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DYOUS, LING XIN WU, VINCENZO LINDIA, TAINA MORALES, CARSON MUELLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES (DMHAS), WHITING FORENSIC HOSPITAL, and PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD, Case No. 3:22-cv-01518-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs aver: 1. Pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of "all acquittees 1 who (1) are, or will be in the future, committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, and (2) are assigned Full Level 4 privileges." 2. The size of the class, estimated at about 40 individuals, is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 3. In addition, joinder is impracticable because the class is dynamic, and absent class members lack the knowledge and financial means to maintain individual actions. 4. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are experienced in civil rights litigation, litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and representation of individuals acquitted of criminal charges and committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, as well as class action litigation, satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) and (g)(1). A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YV2rWF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirk W. Lowry, Esq. Kathleen M. Flaherty, Esq. CONNECTICUT LEGAL RIGHTS PROJECT CVH-Beers Hall 2nd Floor Middletown, CT 06457 Telephone: (860) 262-5017 E-mail: klowry@clrp.org kflaherty@clrp.org - and - Sheldon V. Toubman, Esq. Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT 846 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (475) 345-3169 E-mail: sheldon.toubman@disrightsct.org deborah.dorfman@disrightsct.org DIRT CHEAP: Seeks More Time to Respond to Waddel Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tamicya Waddel v. Dirt Cheap, Inc. d/b/a The Hide Out Club and Hideout on 36, Inc. d/b/a The Hide Out Club, Case No. 2:22-cv-02205-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to respond to complaint and all pending motions: 1. Undersigned counsel was only recently retained and filed an Entry of Appearance in this case on January 30, 2023. 2. The Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint, and they understand that there are pending Motions. 3. The Defendants request 28 days from the date of the Entry of Appearance, until February 27, 2023, to file responsive pleadings to the Complaint and any and all pending Motions. 4. Pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Defendants contacted Plaintiffs through counsel, and Plaintiff is agreeable to the requested extension of time. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XB2sOr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Garth E. Flygare SMALLHORN LAW LLC 600 Jackson Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 Telephone: (217) 348-5253 E-mail: gflygare@smallhornlaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Turley Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- DraftKings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Company intends to defend itself from the Turley class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On January 9, 2023, Simpson G. Turley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was a contestant in the Company's daily fantasy showdown contest for the January 2, 2023, NFL game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills (the "Bengals-Bills Game"). The Bengals-Bills Game was postponed and eventually cancelled due to Damar Hamlin collapsing during the game. Plaintiff alleges that he was winning prizes in multiple showdown contests at the point in time that the Bengals-Bills Game was cancelled (with 5:58 remaining in the first quarter). Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying out the prize money, the Company refunded entry fees to contestants that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, Plaintiffs seeks statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] DRAFTKINGS INC: GNOG Putative Class Suit Pending in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------- DraftKings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. ("GNOG Inc.") putative class action remains pending in the Nevada State District Court in Clark County. On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada State District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. ("GNOG Inc."), the Company and one of its officers, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc. and Jefferies LLC. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On November 1, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on the grounds of improper forum and lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants. On December 22, 2022, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 23, 2023, defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On February 7, 2023, the parties filed supplemental briefs with respect to the motions to dismiss. Those motions remain pending. DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Junks Richardson Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERISE RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-08275-PMH (SDNY), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion sequence pending, and to close this case. The Court turns finally to the Defendant's argument that the Products do not make an express warranty that they only contain ingredients that do not cause harm to coral reefs. An express warranty is an "affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain." The Plaintiff does not allege that the Products contain any Oxybenzone or Octinoxate, and as such, the Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant breached an express warranty. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty. Sherise Richardson brings this putative class action against Edgewell alleging that Defendant's representation that its sunscreen products are "Reef Friendly" is false and misleading because the products contain chemicals that are harmful to coral reefs. The Plaintiff's claims are based on the representation "Reef Friendly" featured on certain Hawaiian Tropic (TM) sunscreen labels. Edgewell Personal manufactures, markets, and sells a range of sunscreen products under the Hawaiian Tropic® brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RYogCr at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend Vega Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Company intends to defend itself from the Vega securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On June 3, 2022, another purported unitholder of Energy Transfer, Mike Vega, filed suit, purportedly on behalf of a class, against Energy Transfer and Messrs. Warren, Long, McCrea, and Whitehurst. See Vega v. Energy Transfer LP et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-4614 (S.D.N.Y.). The action asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to statements made in connection with the construction of the Rover pipeline project. On August 10, 2022, the Court appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council and Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (the "New Mexico Funds") as lead plaintiffs. New Mexico Funds filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2022 and added as additional defendants Energy Transfer directors John W. McReynolds and Matthew S. Ramsey. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 4, 2022. On November 7, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer and transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The defendants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. However, the defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them. Energy Transfer LP -- https://www.energytransfer.com/ -- is an American company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport.[BN] ENERGY TRANSFER: Oral Argument on Cline Suit Set for March 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Company's oral argument appeal for the Cline class suit to the 10th Circuit is set for March 21, 2023. On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer (R&M), LLC) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, "ETMT") that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments, and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the "Order"). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. On November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the district court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted. Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class engaged in asset discovery and actively tried to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings from ETMT's customers. ETMT unsuccessfully tried to deposit the funds into the Court's Registry. Accordingly, to stop the garnishment proceedings, on December 2, 2022, ETMT wired approximately $161 million to the Plaintiff's approved Plan Administrator, which represents the full amount of the judgment with attorney's fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. Plaintiff has since dismissed the garnishment actions. ETMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can ETMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court on April 28, 2022, seeking review of the 10th Circuit’s dismissal of ETMT’s appeal. The Supreme Court denied ETMT’s Petition on October 3, 2022. Despite the denial of its Petition for Writ of Certiorari, ETMT is still vigorously appealing the finality issues underlying the Order and has appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. The appeal to the 10th Circuit has been fully briefed and oral argument is set for March 21, 2023. Energy Transfer LP -- https://www.energytransfer.com/ -- is an American company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport.[BN] ENVOLVE CLIENT: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal of Alvarado Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALMA ALVARADO, Individually and for others similarly situated, v. ENVOLVE CLIENT SERVICES GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00292-FM (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Frank Montalvo entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, denying plaintiff's motion to transfer, and granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss. -- The "Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)" is denied as premature. -- The "Alvarado's Opposed Motion to Transfer or Alternative Motion to Dismiss" is denied to the extent it seeks to transfer the case cause pursuant to Section 1631 and granted to the extent it seeks to voluntarily dismiss the case. Alvarado was an hourly accountant for Envolve, "a real estate and property management company" headquartered in Tennessee. She worked for Envolve "from approximately December 2019 until March 2022," during which time she "worked close to 60 hours" per week. Envolve "required Alvarado to work through her lunch period, even as Envolve also required Alvarado to clock out for lunch." Envolve frequently failed to pay Alvarado for work she did outside her scheduled start and end times or for overtime compensation when she worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff filed a complaint in August 2022, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeking to represent a collective of all similarly situated accountants who have worked for the Defendant. Envolve is an integrated multifamily real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xxtaak at no extra charge.[CC] ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: ESTA) resulting from allegations that the Company may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Establishment Labs securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9304 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 19, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "Establishment Labs: A Financially Stretched Silicone Safety Charade" which alleged, among other things, that "[d]espite claims of superior safety, we found that almost all key safety studies touted by the company have conflicts of interest, with many undisclosed or under-disclosed." Further, the report alleged that "Establishment claims to have successfully piloted a 'revolutionary' technique to place implants through the armpit using local anesthesia (instead of general), claiming the technique will greatly expand its Total Addressable Market (TAM). This type of insertion has been reported since the 1970s and has been widely available for almost 20 years. It has failed to gain traction due to safety risks." The report also alleged that "[b]eyond undisclosed safety questions, we have also identified financial risks. Import/export records show that Establishment ships product to entities formerly owned by the CEO and his family, raising questions of conflicts of interest." On this news, Establishment Labs' stock price fell $5.22, or 9%, to close at $51.13 per share on October 19, 2022. 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. [GN] ETTIKA LLC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Jimenez ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA JIMENEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ETTIKA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05381-PAE-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order scheduling initial case management conference: -- An initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. on the Court's conference line. -- The parties are directed to call: (866) 390-1828; access code: 380-9799, at the scheduled time. -- The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. -- No later than one week before the conference, the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. -- To the extent the parties disagree about any portion of the Proposed Case Management Plan, they may set forth their respective proposals for the disputed provision, without argument. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YwDzVe at no extra charge.[CC] EXPEDIA GROUP: McCarthy Attorney Discusses Dismissal in Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Rooney, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault, disclosed that in Hoy v Expedia Group Inc (2022 ONSC 6650), the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that trivago, Expedia and Booking.com breached the unfair practice provisions of provincial consumer protection legislation and Section 52 of the Competition Act. Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the case -- the judgment is currently under appeal. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misled consumers by presenting search results as objective and unbiased when, in fact, the rank ordering of properties on the defendants' websites was influenced by the compensation they received. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or misleading claims on their websites about discounts and the remaining inventory left at each hotel. Following investigations in Europe, trivago, Expedia and Booking.com each entered into undertakings with the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to reform their business practices. Additionally, trivago was ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to pay fines for misleading representations on its website and television advertising in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) (ACCC v Trivago, NV No 2, 2022 FCA 417). In Canada, however, the Ontario Superior Court declined to adopt the conclusions reached in foreign jurisdictions. Rejected these options, the court instead concluded that the plaintiffs' claim did not disclose a cause of action and that the other certification criteria had not been met. The ruling provides several key takeaways for practitioners. One: compensable injury is required for a certifiable claim in Ontario This case is the latest instalment of the 'no harm, no foul' principle, under which there must be a class of two or more plaintiffs who have suffered compensable harm in order for a class action to be certified. In this case, the plaintiffs' claims that they received inferior accommodation for the price or lost the opportunity to obtain superior accommodation for the price were not compensable by law. Two: absent compensatory damages, claims for "loss or damage" under Section 36, for breach of Section 52 of the Competition Act, are doomed to fail Justice Perell held that the plaintiffs' claims for restitution, nominal damages, punitive damages and disgorgement were doomed to fail in the absence of a claim for compensatory damages. In addition, the Competition Actclaims failed because the plaintiffs had not pleaded reliance, there was no general duty of disclosure under the act and no material facts were pleaded that the alleged misrepresentations were made knowingly or recklessly. Three: restitution, disgorgement and nominal damages are not available for a breach of consumer protection legislation The plaintiffs alleged that the consumers and the accommodation market had been harmed by the defendants' business practices but did not seek compensatory damages for the class, conceding that they would be difficult or impossible to prove on a class-wide (or even an individual) basis. Justice Perell held that both as a matter of statutory interpretation and common law, the remedies sought by the plaintiffs were not available. The primary remedy for breach of the unfair practice provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002is rescission. Damages are an alternative remedy to restore consumers to the position they would have enjoyed had the unfair practice not occurred. Four: breach of consumer protection and adverse foreign regulatory proceedings is not enough for a certifiable punitive damages claim The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient material facts for a punitive damages claim despite arguable breaches of the consumer protection legislation and the CMA/ACCC proceedings in the United Kingdom and Australia, respectively. In addition, a freestanding claim for punitive damages would not be the preferable procedure. Five: limitation periods can be used to narrow the proposed class in certain cases Had the other certification criteria been met, the court held that the class would have to be amended to take account of the applicable limitation periods. The plaintiffs proposed a 15-year limitation period based on the ultimate limitation period in Ontario. However, the court held that the presumptive basic limitation period in Ontario was two years after each class member made the searches. Class counsel did not need to be retained for the plaintiffs to discover their claims. Case name and reference Hoy v Expedia Group Inc, 2022 ONSC 6650 Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice Parties Plaintiffs Matthew Hoy and Justin Storey sued the operators of travel websites expedia.ca, travelocity.ca, ca.hotels.com, booking.com and trivago.ca. Cause of action Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have contravened the Competition Act, Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, 2002 or the equivalent consumer protection legislation of the remaining provinces and territories. Disposition: Plaintiff's certification motion was dismissed. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Closes Shaked Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY SHAKED and YISROEL LIEBERMAN, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC, and TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-04088-HG (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The Experian Experian has filed a stipulation signed by all parties that have appeared, in compliance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), pursuant to which the Plaintiffs have dismissed with prejudice all of their claims against both Experian and Defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. Since Plaintiffs' claims against all parties have been dismissed, the Court therefore denies as moot Experian's pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and Experian's pending request for a pre-motion conference to discuss a proposed motion to bifurcate merits discovery from discovery related to class certification. Experian Information operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XxtQwu at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SAUL REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-23-603973, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on Feb. 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00693 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse business expenses under Cal. Lab. Code; and (2) unfair business practices under Cal. Government Code. The Plaintiff alleges the action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure. Federal Express Corporation is an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce and business services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jane M. Flynn, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 862-4643 Facsimile: (901) 492-5641 E-mail: jane.flynn@fedex.com FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Newman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD G. NEWMAN JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORS LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02128-KKM-CPT (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class certification deadline until March 31, 2023. On September 13, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's robocalls provision. On October 13, 2022, Defendant first appeared and filed a motion to dismiss. On December 1, 2022, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order setting a December 23, 2022 deadline for initial disclosures and a February 1, 2023 deadline for class certification. On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff served his initial disclosures, but Defendant did not. On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel followed up with Defendant's counsel regarding Defendant's initial disclosures, and Plaintiff served a set of written discovery on Defendant, seeking among other things, call records necessary to identify prerecorded calls to putative class members and move for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4138nhV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com FIBROGEN INC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xu v. Fibrogen, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02623-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3); and 3. appointing Saxena White as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The case is securities fraud class action. The Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements to investors about the safety and efficacy of FibroGen's single most important drug, an experimental anemia pill for kidney patients known as Roxadustat. The Complaint asserts that the Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Roxadustat's critical Phase 3 trial results showed that the drug was "superior" to Epogen, the current standard of care for dialysis-dependent patients, and even safer than a placebo. The Defendants further represented that Roxadustat's "unbelievable" safety data would lead to FDA approval not only for patients on dialysis, but also less severe kidney disease patients either not on dialysis or just beginning dialysis, which represented an untapped multi-billion-dollar market. FibroGen is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOqCGa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Kaplan, Esq. Emily Bishop, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. Kyla Grant, Esq. Sara DiLeo, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com ebishop@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com kgrant@saxenawhite.com sdileo@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com msaxena@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com FIELDALE FARMS: Settles Chicken Price-Fixing Class Suit for $181-M ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenClassActions.com reports that amid food inflation and food prices skyrocketing for households all over the United States, especially for poultry and eggs, a $181 Million chicken open class action lawsuit settlement has been agreed which involves residents of certain states in the U.S. who purchased chicken in the last 11 years. Specifically, if you purchased any chicken or chicken products from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2020 you can be eligible to receive a cash payout from a collection of chicken and broiler chicken lawsuits, resulting in class action lawsuits totaling a $181 million settlement fund to be distributed. The claim deadline to file a legitimate qualifying settlement form has been extended to accommodate claimants and is now April 3, 2023. The full list of States that qualify are included below. The settlement involves multiple companies who have been accused of unfair price fixing monopoly and oligopoly business practices resulting from collusion to rip off the every day consumer. Companies involved in this that have agreed to settle are some of the biggest food producers in the United States: Fieldale, George's, Mar-Jac, Peco, Pilgrim's, and Tyson Foods. How Do I Qualify? You are a Class Member of the Chicken Settlement if you purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken (defined as whole birds (with or without giblets), whole cut-up birds purchased within a package, or "white meat" parts including breasts and wings (or cuts containing a combination of these). The chicken must have been purchased in California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island (after July 15, 2013), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin from January 1, 2009 (except for Rhode Island, which is from July 15, 2013), to July 31, 2019. What If I Don't Qualify for the Chicken Lawsuit? Look for other Class Action Settlements you do qualify for by getting notified of new ones as they are announced here. How Do I File a Claim? To be eligible to receive a payment from the $181 Million Chicken Settlement, you must complete and submit a timely Claim Form by April 3 2023 and find the claim form by searching online for Chicken Open Class Action. [GN] FIRST MIAMI: M&A Firm Continues Investigation of United Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: First Miami Bancorp, Inc. (OTC: FMIA), relating to its proposed sale to United Community Banks, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, FMIA shareholders are expected to receive 10.2685 shares of United per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/first-miami-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341[GN] FLORISSANT CITY, MO: Baker Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, et al., v. CITY OF FLORISSANT, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nannette A. Baker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The named Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are appointed as Class Representatives to represent the Modified Class 1, defined as follows: "All persons held in the City of Florissant jail on behalf of the City of Florissant for failure to satisfy a bond, fine, fee, (excluding "warrant recall fees", "letter fees", and/or "failure to appear fees", as defined in Watkins v. City of Florissant, Case No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan. 2016)), surcharge, and/or costs without (1) an indigency hearing, (2) a finding that they were a flight risk, or (3) a finding that they were a danger to the community from October 31, 2011 to present (excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence hold)." The named Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are appointed as Class Representatives to represent the Modified Class 3, defined as follows: "All persons held in the City of Florissant jail, between October 31, 2011 to present, on a Failure to Appear warrant for the City of Florissant who were not brought before a judge for a first appearance or arraignment (excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence hold)." The Plaintiffs Baker, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are appointed as Class Representatives to represent the Narrowed Modified Class 4, defined as follows: "All persons who paid fines and/or fees to the City of Florissant (excluding "warrant recall fees", "letter fees", and/or "failure to appear fees", as defined in Watkins v. City of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan. 2016)) after being jailed on a warrant issued by Florissant and without an indigency hearing from October 31, 2011 to present." John Waldron and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc., 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390, St. Louis, Missouri 63102; Andrea R. Gold of Tyco & Zavareei LLP, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; and Ryan Keane and Nathaniel Carroll of Keane Law LLC, 7711 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, are appointed as Class Counsel. The parties, within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, shall submit a proposed joint scheduling plan that includes the parties' positions concerning when a referral of this action to mediation would be most productive, and any other appropriate deadlines and dates for anticipated motions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XufI7r at no extra charge.[CC] FOREST LAWN: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- The Southern California labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (hereinafter, collectively, "Forest Lawn") for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 23STCV02200, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit, Forest Lawn allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse for required business expenses; (5) provide wages when due; and (6) provide accurate itemized wage statements. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Forest Lawn's employees were allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were from time to time interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete tasks for Forest Lawn. Employees were allegedly required to perform work as ordered by Forest Lawn for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, the lawsuit alleges Forest Lawn failed to provide employees with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which these employees were required by Forest Lawn to work ten (10) hours of work. Forest Lawn's policy allegedly caused employees to remain on-call and on duty during what was supposed to be their off-duty meal periods. Employees therefore allegedly forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with Forest Lawn's strict corporate policy and practice. If you would like to know more about the lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC, and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and employment law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.[GN] FREEDOMROADS LLC: Umanzor Sues Over Salesmen's Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Umanzor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FreedomRoads, LLC; Camping World RV Sales, LLC, a/k/a Camping World RV Sales, a/k/a Camping World RV Sales (Hanover CO), a/k/a Camping World RV Sales (Henrico CO), a/k/a Camping World RV Sales (Newport News CI), a/k/a Camping World RV Sales (Prince William CO), a/k/a Camping World RV Sales (Spotsylvania CO), a/k/a Airstream of Virginia (Hanover CO), a/k/a Airstream of Virginia (Spotsylvania CO), a/k/a Gander RV (Spotsylvania CO), a/k/a Gander RV Sales (Roanoke CO), a/k/a RV World of Virginia (Spotsylvania CO), and a/k/a McGeorge's Rolling Hills (Hanover CO); RV World, LLC, a/k/a Gander RV, a/k/a Gander RV Sales (Spotsylvania CO), and a/k/a RV World of Virginia (Hanover CO), Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00117 (E.D. Va., Feb. 14, 2023) is a class action claim against the Defendants for Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime in violation of the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Umanzor was employed as a recreational vehicle salesman by Defendants on more than one occasion between 2018 and 2021. Most recently, Umanzor was re-hired by Defendants at the Hanover County McGeorge Rolling Hills/Camping World RV location on February 26, 2021 and was terminated on October 21, 2021. FreedomRoads, LLC operates a network of recreational vehicle dealerships at various locations throughout Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com FRIGATE'S WATERFRONT: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FITZJOHN MCCANN and ROBINSON ROMAN, v. FRIGATE'S WATERFRONT BAR & GRILL, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 9:22-cv-80464-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of class action settlement on behalf of the following class: "All tipped employees who worked for Defendant from April 16, 2021, through January 7, 2022, for whom the Defendant claimed a tip credit to meet Defendant's minimum wage obligations under Article X, Section 24, of the Florida Constitution and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and for whom the Defendant subjected to a deduction for breakage." The Court certifies FitzJohn McCann and Robinson Roman as the Class Representatives and the Scott Law Team LLC as Class Counsel. The lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice in all respects. The Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding. The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to the Lawsuit and/or Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order, and the approval of any attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel. On October 11, 2022, the Florida Southern District Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement and certification of settlement class. Members of the settlement class had until December 9, 2022, to submit a claim form or file an objection to the settlement in this matter. No objections were filed. The Parties jointly filed their Motion for Final Approval on December 29, 2022. On January 31, 2023, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to determine whether the claims asserted in the case satisfy the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members and should be approved by the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yy3T16 at no extra charge.[CC] G-III APPAREL: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of G-III Apparel Group Ltd. (NASDAQ: GIII) resulting from allegations that G-III may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased G-III securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=11207 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 1, 2022, G-III announced its third-quarter financial and operating results. Among other things, G-III reported that "higher inventory levels are due to our accelerated production calendar, which was in anticipation of longer supply chain lead times. Our inventory is comprised of current purchases and guided by our order book. During the quarter, the higher inventory levels caused logistical challenges within our distribution centers. This resulted in significant one-time charges in the third quarter, that were above our expectations, which adversely impacted our bottom line by approximately $0.40 per diluted share". On this news, G-III's stock price fell $9.66 per share, or 44%, to close at $11.97 per share on December 1, 2022. 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] GARDEN GROVE: Burklund Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE BURKLUND, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California public school ; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDEx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's notice of ex parte application continuing the existing class certification schedule: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file May 12, 2023 his Motion for Class Certification by: 2. The Defendant must file its May 29, 2023 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by: 3. The Plaintiff must file his June 5, 2023 Reply to Defendant's Opposition by: 4. The Court will hear Plaintiff's June 12, 2023 Motion for Class Certification on: The Garden Grove Unified School District is the 14th-largest school district in California. It includes boundaries in Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S0rbuj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com sepideh@crosnerlegal.com GARDEN GROVE: Extension of Class Cert Schedule by 90 Days Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE BURKLUND, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California public school district; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court via ex parte application for an order continuing the existing class certification schedule by 90 days. Current Date Proposed Date -- Deadline to file Motion Feb. 8, 2023 May 12, 2023 for Class Certification -- Deadline to file Feb. 20, 2023 May 29, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to file Reply to Feb. 27, 2023 June 5, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification -- Hearing for Motion for March 6, 2023 June 12, 2023 Class Certification The Garden Grove Unified School District is the 14th-largest school district in California. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I4OP46 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com sepideh@crosnerlegal.com The Counsel for Defendant are: Amber S. Healy Hailey N. Oberst E-mail: ahealy@aalrr.com hailey.oberst@aalrr.com Telephone: (562) 653-3200 GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over E85 FlexFuel Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Jaquins, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge sided with General Motors after an Illinois man blamed the car maker for his Chevy breaking down following regular use of E85 gasoline. In October 2019, plaintiff Michael Fleury bought a used 2016 Chevrolet Impala Flex Fuel -- a car which he said GM claimed could run on E85 fuel, which is a blend of 85% ethanol and gasoline. When Fleury began using E85 exclusively, he claims his car broke down. He filed the lawsuit July 26, and an amended complaint Sept. 20. Fleury brought a putative class action, alleging a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and claims of fraud and breach of express warranty under Illinois law. GM moved to dismiss Fleury's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion was granted on Feb. 1 by Judge Virginia M. Kendall in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Fleury, an Illinois resident, brought claims on behalf of over 100 proposed class members, seeking more than $5 million in collective damages from GM. Fleury bought the car from Advantage Chevrolet, an authorized GM dealer in suburban Hodgkins. Fleury claimed the Flex Fuel feature, which allowed the car to operate on E85 fuel in addition to gasoline, incentivized him to buy the Impala. Before he bought the car, he saw a prominent 'E85' sticker in the window above the fuel filler, and he allegedly relied on the sticker in purchasing the vehicle. Fleury also saw an Advantage Chevrolet online ad that claimed the Impala's engine included E85 FlexFuel capability — specifications that came from GM. Also, the car's fuel filler cap was maize yellow, which GM used to denote a Flex Fuel vehicle. Following an increase in gasoline prices in 2022, Fleury said he began using E85 regularly and had used the alternative high-ethanol fuel several times before without issue. Before using E85 regularly, Fleury said he consulted the owners manual to see if there were warnings or prohibitions about his intended use of E85. However, Fleury did not allege he read the owner's manual before buying his car. The owner's manual alerts users to the potential problem. GM's service bulletin also provides a mechanism for authorized dealers to warn Flex Fuel drivers against excessive E85 use, according to court documents. In early April 2022, following Fleury's regular use of E85, Fleury said the check-engine light and a warning light displayed and the car allegedly lost power. He brought the car to Advantage Chevrolet, where the service department found the car had low fuel pressure from the high pressure fuel pump and the pump would need to be replaced. He allegedly was told the problems stemmed from his use of E85 fuel. A service advisor at Advantage Chevrolet also allegedly informed Fleury he should have been alternating fillups between E85 and gasoline, and that failing to do so caused the problems with his Impala. In January, Fleury's Impala allegedly failed an Illinois emissions test. To pass the test, Fleury's car would need a new mass air flow sensor due to the ongoing failure of the high pressure fuel pump. Advantage Chevrolet allegedly required Fleury to pay for the diagnosis and repairs. GM later allegedly offered to fix the fuel pump after Fleury complained to the Better Business Bureau. Fixing the fuel pump wouldn't allow Fleury to operate his car using only E85 without risking damage, he alleged. The court found Fleury's injury avoidable. The judge said he could have asked the dealer about the meaning of Flex Fuel capability before running his car exclusively on E85. The court also found Fleury failed to identify a false or deceptive statement from GM. The judge said he did not contend his Flex Fuel vehicle cannot use E85. Stating that Flex Fuel vehicles can run on E85 -- and even encouraging such use -- didn't contradict the truth that using E85 exclusively may cause damage, the judge said. According to the court, the only representations Fleury allegedly relied on before purchasing his car were the "E85" window sticker and the car dealership's advertisement. Neither of these representations were false or deceptive, according to the court. Rather, Fleury admits he used E85 several times without issue. Fleury didn't allege he relied on any statements suggesting the car could run solely on E85. The breach of express warranty claim against GM also was thrown out. The court said the warranty accrued on the date of the Impala's delivery to its first owner in June 2016 -- more than four years before Fleury filed this lawsuit in July 2022. Fleury was represented by Tara L. Goodwin, Carly Roman and Daniel Edelman, of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, of Chicago. GM was represented by Justin B. Weiner, Stephanie A. Douglas and Jeffrey Turner, of Bush Seyferth, of Troy, Michigan; and Anthony M. Sam, of Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine, of suburban Warrenville. [GN] GENWORTH LIFE: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 extending deadlines for class certification briefing as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Plaintiff's Motion for Class Jan. 31, 2023 Feb. 14, 2023 Certification and any Class Certification Expert Report Defendant's Opposition to Apr. 3, 2023 Apr. 17, 2023 Motion for Class Certification and any Class Certification Expert Report Plaintiff's Reply in support Jun. 5, 2023 Jun. 19, 2023 of Motion for Class Certification and any Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Report The remaining deadlines in the 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. A copy of the Parties motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xrw9kF at 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, Esq. 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 GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Daly Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN DALY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION, INC. d/b/a THINK!, Case No. 2023-CH-00096, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00933 to the proceeding. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant manufactures and sells Think High Protein Bars, and that Defendant makes "false and misleading claims" to market and advertise the products. The complaint asserts cause of action against Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Glanbia Performance Nutrition, Inc. provides nutritional products. The Company offers food, beverage, supplement, and animal nutrition products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William P. Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP 515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 933-2330 Facsimile: (312) 884-7352 E-mail: William@amintalati.com Matt@amintalati.com - and - Manon Burns, Esq. AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP 549 W. Randolph Street Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 466-1033 Facsimile: (312) 884-7352 E-mail: Manon@amintalati.com GRANGE INSURANCE: Sweetwater Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff SWEETWATER GRILL LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Order dated January 11, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled SWEETWATER GRILL LLC, through its management affiliate 424 WALNUT LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-00853, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This is a civil class action filed on June 8, 2020 for declaratory relief and breach of contract arising from Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a business that closed or significantly limited its operations after the governor of Pennsylvania issued an executive order to curb the spread of the coronavirus and the disease it causes, COVID-19. The Plaintiff filed claims under its commercial property insurance policy to recover losses it suffered because of the executive order. The Defendant universally denied coverage, arguing that the business did not suffer a "physical loss of or damage to" property necessary to trigger coverage or that a "virus exclusion" applied and barred coverage, says the suit. On January 11, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim which the Court granted on January 11, 2023 through a Memorandum Order signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. The appellate case is captioned as Sweetwater Grill LLC v. Grange Insurance Co., Case No. 23-1260, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Feb. 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SWEETWATER GRILL LLC, through its management affiliate 424 WALNUT LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA 424 Walnut LLC, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendant-Appellee GRANGE INSURANCE CO. is represented by: James R. Gallagher, Esq. GALLAGHER GAMS TALLAN BARNES AND LITTRELL 471 East Broad Street, 19th Floor Toledo, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-5151 - and - Adam J. Kaiser, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 90 Park Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 - and - Tiffany L. Powers, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4249 GUITAR CENTER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Strehl Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GEOFFREY STREHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUITAR CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23STCV03275 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2023) is a class action suit brought against Guitar Center for aiding, agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its website guitarcenter.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. The complaint alleges that the wiretaps, which are embedded in the chat function on the website by third party, Salesforce, Inc., are used without the prior consent of visitors to the website. The Defendant contracts with Salesforce to provide the software that secretly runs the chat function on Defendant's website. The electronic communications made in the chat function are routed through the servers of and are used by Salesforce to, among other things, secretly observe and record website visitors' electronic communications in real time. The nature of Salesforce's licensing agreement with Defendant is such that Defendant "aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires" to permit Salesforce to read, attempt to read, to learn, and/or to use the chats without the consent of visitors to the website. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who used Salesforce's Chat function on the Guitar Center website, and whose electronic communications were allegedly intercepted or recorded by Salesforce. Guitar Center, Inc. owns and operates retail stores across the United States, including in California and Pennsylvania, selling musical instruments and related equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com GVG CAPITAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH EAGLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GVG CAPITAL, LLC, d/b/a WeBuyHomes4Cash.org, Case No. (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. The Court also entered an order that the Defendant's request for oral argument is denied as unnecessary and as moot. The Court finds that the Defendant's arguments are premature. "Judges in the Eighth Circuit typically deny as premature motions to strike class allegations filed significantly in advance of any possible motion for class certification." This case is in its early stages and discovery has not yet commenced. Consequently, "prior to any class discovery or a motion for class certification, the Court cannot determine whether individualized matters will predominate over common issues. The Plaintiffs have set forth plausible claims for relief." The Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of herself, and also seeks to represent three classes of similarly situated individuals. The proposed classes are as follows: -- Federal Do-Not-Call Registry Class "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom GVG Capital, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting GVG Capital, LLC's or its business partners' goods or services, (2) where the person's residential telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before GVG Capital, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the text messages within the 12-month period, (3) within four years preceding the date of this complaint through the date of class certification. -- Revocation Class "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom GVG Capital, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting GVG Capital, LLC's or its business partners' goods or services, (2) after the texted party informed GVG Capital, LLC that he or she did not wish to receive text messages, or after the texted party instructed GVG Capital, LLC to stop delivering text messages to the telephone number, (3) within four years preceding the date of this complaint through the date of class certification. -- Sender Identification Class "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom GVG Capital, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12- month period, promoting GVG Capital, LLC's or its business partners' goods or services, (2) where the subject text messages did not state the name of the individual caller, the name of GVG Capital, LLC, and a telephone number or address at which GVG Capital, LLC may be contacted, (3) within four years preceding the date of this complaint through the date of class certification. GVG Capital is a real estate sector that accomplishes its development through technology. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40V5CPK at no extra charge.[CC] HERSHEY COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Hollifield Says -------------------------------------------------------------- STACEY HOLLIFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00473 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 14, 2023) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the last three years in its food manufacturing facility in Robinsonville, Illinois. Plaintiff's job duties involved the manufacturing, packaging, and handling of food. She alleges that Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Hershey Company manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Albert ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALBERT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-694 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to consolidate cases. -- The parties are ordered to follow the case schedule in "Albert Suit" -- The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice. -- HDMA's request to stay this matter pending the final disposition of A&L Home Care is granted. -- The parties shall jointly contact the Court within 14 days of the Sixth Circuit's issuance of its decision in A&L Home Care. -- This case remains open. In sum, the balance of the factors militates toward a stay. However, this Opinion and Order should not be read as endorsing a stay whenever a case before the Sixth Circuit involves legal issues that are potentially relevant to a separate action pending in a district court. But in this case, under these unique circumstances, a stay is appropriate. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice The Defendant HDMA's request in the alternative to stay proceedings pending the final disposition of Brooke Clark, et al., v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, et al., Sixth Circuit Case Nos. 22-3101, 22-3102 is granted. The Plaintiff Michael Albert brings this action against Defendant HDMA. The Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that HDMA failed to pay overtime to him and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff also raises claims under state law, which are not the subject of the motions at bar. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from a ransomware attack on the Kronos timekeeping system that rendered the system, as used by HDMA, inoperable from approximately December 11, 2021 to mid-February 2022. HDMA "is a firm consisting of 'all of [HDMA's] automobile manufacturing facilities in the U.S. related to frame, engine, transmission, and related engineering and purchasing operations.'" A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YRzsmx at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Scarbrough -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SCARBROUGH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-4277 (S.D. Ohio), , the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to consolidate cases. -- The parties are ordered to follow the case schedule in "Albert v. Honda, Case No. 2:22-cv-694 (S.D. Ohio). -- The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice. -- HDMA's request to stay this matter pending the final disposition of A&L Home Care is granted. -- The parties shall jointly contact the Court within 14 days of the Sixth Circuit's issuance of its decision in A&L Home Care. -- This case remains open. In sum, the balance of the factors militates toward a stay. However, this Opinion and Order should not be read as endorsing a stay whenever a case before the Sixth Circuit involves legal issues that are potentially relevant to a separate action pending in a district court. But in this case, under these unique circumstances, a stay is appropriate. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice The Defendant HDMA's request in the alternative to stay proceedings pending the final disposition of Brooke Clark, et al., v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, et al., Sixth Circuit Case Nos. 22-3101, 22-3102 is granted. The Plaintiff Michael Albert brings this action against Defendant HDMA. The Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that HDMA failed to pay overtime to him and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff also raises claims under state law, which are not the subject of the motions at bar. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from a ransomware attack on the Kronos timekeeping system that rendered the system, as used by HDMA, inoperable from approximately December 11, 2021 to mid-February 2022. HDMA "is a firm consisting of 'all of [HDMA's] automobile manufacturing facilities in the U.S. related to frame, engine, transmission, and related engineering and purchasing operations.'" A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IlcOgH at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd in Tripoli ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVOR TRIPOLI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-3828 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to consolidate cases. -- The parties are ordered to follow the case schedule in "Albert v. Honda, Case No. 2:22-cv-694 (S.D. Ohio). -- The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice. -- HDMA's request to stay this matter pending the final disposition of A&L Home Care is granted. -- The parties shall jointly contact the Court within 14 days of the Sixth Circuit's issuance of its decision in A&L Home Care. -- This case remains open. In sum, the balance of the factors militates toward a stay. However, this Opinion and Order should not be read as endorsing a stay whenever a case before the Sixth Circuit involves legal issues that are potentially relevant to a separate action pending in a district court. But in this case, under these unique circumstances, a stay is appropriate. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice The Defendant HDMA's request in the alternative to stay proceedings pending the final disposition of Brooke Clark, et al., v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, et al., Sixth Circuit Case Nos. 22-3101, 22-3102 is granted. The Plaintiff Michael Albert brings this action against Defendant HDMA. The Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that HDMA failed to pay overtime to him and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff also raises claims under state law, which are not the subject of the motions at bar. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from a ransomware attack on the Kronos timekeeping system that rendered the system, as used by HDMA, inoperable from approximately December 11, 2021 to mid-February 2022. HDMA "is a firm consisting of 'all of [HDMA's] automobile manufacturing facilities in the U.S. related to frame, engine, transmission, and related engineering and purchasing operations.'" A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S0pdds at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Parties' Joint Bid to Consolidate Cases OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WHATLEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-4372 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to consolidate cases. -- The parties are ordered to follow the case schedule in "Albert v. Honda, Case No. 2:22-cv-694 (S.D. Ohio). -- The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice. -- HDMA's request to stay this matter pending the final disposition of A&L Home Care is granted. -- The parties shall jointly contact the Court within 14 days of the Sixth Circuit's issuance of its decision in A&L Home Care. -- This case remains open. In sum, the balance of the factors militates toward a stay. However, this Opinion and Order should not be read as endorsing a stay whenever a case before the Sixth Circuit involves legal issues that are potentially relevant to a separate action pending in a district court. But in this case, under these unique circumstances, a stay is appropriate. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice The Defendant HDMA's request in the alternative to stay proceedings pending the final disposition of Brooke Clark, et al., v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, et al., Sixth Circuit Case Nos. 22-3101, 22-3102 is granted. The Plaintiff Michael Albert brings this action against Defendant HDMA. The Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that HDMA failed to pay overtime to him and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff also raises claims under state law, which are not the subject of the motions at bar. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from a ransomware attack on the Kronos timekeeping system that rendered the system, as used by HDMA, inoperable from approximately December 11, 2021 to mid-February 2022. HDMA "is a firm consisting of 'all of [HDMA's] automobile manufacturing facilities in the U.S. related to frame, engine, transmission, and related engineering and purchasing operations.'" A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YuCY6n at no extra charge.[CC] HOWMET AEROSPACE: Discovery Ongoing in Arconic Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Howmet Aerospace Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the discovery is ongoing for the Arconic class suits. In 2017, two purported class actions were filed against Arconic Inc., Klaus Kleinfeld and other former Arconic Inc. executives and directors, and certain banks. The actions, which later were consolidated, allege violations of the federal securities laws relating to the Grenfell Fire. On June 23, 2021, the court ruled that certain claims related to a particular registration statement, other SEC filings, product brochures and websites can proceed and dismissed all other claims with prejudice. On December 2, 2022, the court issued an initial case management order, setting forth deadlines for class certification briefing and discovery. Discovery has begun and is ongoing. Howmet Aerospace Inc. is an American aerospace company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. HUMANA INC: Calvin Loses Bid to Extend Class Status Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CALVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HUMANA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 9:22-cv-80804-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for extension of class certification deadline, filed January 24, 2023. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the Defendant's Response, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On October 6, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Planning & Scheduling Report, agreeing, to a trial date commencing January 22, 2024 and a deadline of February 1, 2023 for Plaintiff to file a class certification motion. The Court entered a Scheduling Order, setting this case for trial to commence on January 22, 2024, with a deadline of February 1, 2023 for the Plaintiff to file a class certification motion. Humana operates as a health care company that offers a range of insurance products and health and wellness services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I0DgLo at no extra charge.[CC] IMPERIAL METALS: Reaches Proposed Settlement in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- This notice is directed to all persons and entities, excluding certain persons associated with the Defendants who acquired Imperial Metals Corporation's common shares, notes or other such securities from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014. On August 7, 2014, a proposed class action was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Action"). The Plaintiff alleges that Imperial Metals Corporation's continuous disclosure documents contained misrepresentations at law and within the meaning of Part XXIIII.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 and, if necessary, the other provincial and territorial securities legislation from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, by failing to disclose the adverse conditions at Imperial Metals Corporation's tailings storage facility at the Mount Polley mine. The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Action, without an admission of liability by the Defendants, subject to the approval by the Court. This notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement. On February 7, 2023, the action was certified on consent for settlement purposes. The certified class includes persons, other than Excluded Persons, who acquired Imperial Metals Corporation's securities from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014. The persons included in the class are entitled to participate in the settlement. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Imperial Defendants will pay $6 million, in full and final settlement of all claims against the Defendants. The $6 million, less the lawyers' fees, disbursements and taxes, honorarium, and the costs of administration of the settlement will be distributed to the Class in accordance with a plan of allocation. The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at www.imperialmetalsclassaction.com and https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/imperial-metals-corporation/. THE APPROVAL HEARING The Court will be asked to approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees, disbursements, expenses and taxes at a hearing to be held on May 11, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. at the courthouse located at 330 University Avenue, Toronto. The lawyers for the Class will ask the Court to approve legal fees of 25% percent of $6 million which is $1.5 million, plus disbursements and taxes. OBJECTIONS Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement are not required to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement. Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at their own expense. At the approval hearing, the Court will consider an objection to the proposed settlement by a Class Member if the objection is submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to the Administrator: Imperial Metals Class Action, c/o RicePoint Administration Inc., P.O. Box 3355, London, ON N6A 4K3, Email: imperialmetals@ricepoint.com. Class Members who wish to object must do so before April 21, 2023. A written objection can be submitted in English or French and must include the following information: (a) the objector's full name, current mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email address (as may be available); (b) a statement that the Class Member acquired Imperial Metals Corporation's common shares, notes or other such securities from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014; (c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the objection; and (d) the objector intends to appear at the Approval Hearing in person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of counsel. OPTING OUT FROM THE CLASS ACTION If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by the outcome of the Action, including the terms of the proposed settlement, if approved, unless you opt out of the Action. Class Members who do not opt out will (i) be entitled to participate in the settlement; (ii) be bound by the terms of the settlement; and (iii) not be permitted to bring other legal proceedings in relation to the matters alleged in the Action against the Defendants, or any person released by the approved settlement. Conversely, if you are a Class Member who opts out of the Action (an "Opt Out Party"), you will not be able to make a claim to receive compensation from the proposed settlement but will maintain the right to pursue your own claim against the Defendants relating to the matters alleged in the Action. If you are a Class Member and wish to opt out, you must submit a written election ("Opt Out Election"), to the Administrator are the mail or email address set out in the preceding section. Your Opt Out Election must be postmarked or be sent via email by no later than 11:59pm Toronto (Eastern) time on April 21, 2023 ("Opt Out Deadline") to be valid. To be valid, the Opt Out Election: (a) must contain a statement of intention to opt out of the action by the Class Member or person authorized to bind the Class Member; (b) a listing of all transactions in Imperial Securities from and including August 15, 2011 to and including August 4, 2014 (the Class Period) showing, for each transaction, the type of transaction (purchase or sale), the number of Imperial securities purchased or sold and the date of the transaction, and state the number of securities held at the close of trading on the TSX on August 4, 2014; (c) the transactions must be supported by documents to evidence such transactions, in the form of trade confirmations, brokerage statements or other transaction records allowing the Administrator to verify the transactions; (d) must contain the name, address, telephone number and email address of the Class Member; and (e) may, at the option of the Class Member, contain a statement of the Class Member's reason for opting out. An Opt Out Election that does not contain all of the required information or is postmarked or emailed after the Opt Out Deadline will not be valid, which means that you will be bound by the outcome of the Action, including the proposed settlement, if it is approved. You may revoke an Opt Out Election by delivering to the Administrator by mail or courier a written statement that you wish to revoke the Opt Out Election, which must be postmarked on or before 11:59pm Toronto (Eastern) time on April 26, 2023. [GN] INMAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in Holmes Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, v. INMAR, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss; 2. dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Inmar for lack of personal jurisdiction; 3. terminating the Defendant Inmar from this case; 4. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff's claim for common law fraud (Count I) against Defendant IBS, for failure to state a claim. 5. directing the Plaintiff to proceed with claims of violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count II) and breach of contract (Count VI) against Defendant IBS; 6. granting the Plaintiff's motion to cite additional authority, Defendants' motion for leave to file reply, and the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended signed declaration. 7. denying the Defendants' motion for sanctions; 8. lifting the stay on class certification; and 9. directing the Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to certify class within 21 days. The Plaintiff, Brent D. Holmes, filed an Amended Complaint on June 3, 2022, on behalf of himself and all other consumers similarly situated, against Defendants Inmar, Inc. The case had originally been filed in Illinois state court on March 19, 2021, before its removal based upon diversity jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint contains three counts under Illinois law: common law fraud, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("Consumer Fraud Act"), and breach of contract. Inmar develops technology and data analytics services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yu0BMo at no extra charge.[CC] INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the Company will continue to defend itself from the Grobler securities class suit in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company's acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance. On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Act. On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning the Company's non-human primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services and research models and related products and services.[BN] INSPIRATO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Inspirato Incorporated (NASDAQ: ISPO) between May 11, 2022 and December 15, 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 April 17, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Inspirato 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 Inspirato class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10246 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 April 17, 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, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022 (collectively, the Non-Reliance Periods') included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC') for the Non-Reliance Periods, could no longer be relied upon; (2) the Quarterly Reports could no longer be relied upon due to the incorrect application of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (ASC 842') with respect to the assessment of right-of-use assets and liabilities, resulting in an understatement of both right-of-use assets and total lease liabilities of approximately 9% for each of the Non-Reliance Periods resulting in an understatement of total assets and total liabilities by approximately 5% for each of the Non-Reliance periods, and due to property-related and other expenses being under accrued in the first quarter, and over accrued in the second quarter, resulting in cost of revenue being understated by approximately 1% and overstated by approximately 5% in the first and second quarter, respectively (similarly, any previously issued or filed reports, press releases, earnings releases, and investor presentations or other communications describing the Company's condensed consolidated unaudited financial statements and other related financial information covering the Non-Reliance Periods should no longer be relied upon); (3) the Company was not in compliance with the periodic filing requirements for continued listing set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) (the Rule') as a result of its failure to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2022 (the Third Quarter Report') with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC') by the required due date; and (4) 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 Inspirato class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10246 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. [GN] INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: OLERS Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Instructure Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2023, that the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System class suit on January 23, 2023. In February 2021, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System and Q. Wade Billings filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a class action lawsuit against Instructure Holdings, LLC, certain Thoma Bravo entities and certain directors and officers of Instructure Holdings, LLC relating to the Take Private Transaction. The litigation is captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Goldsmith et al., C.A. No. 2021-0092-KSJM. The complaint alleges that such directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Take Private Transaction, and that Instructure Holdings, LLC and Thoma Bravo aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs seek damages of an unidentified amount, interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. On January 6, 2023, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in full. Instructure Holdings Inc. (NYSE: INST) provides cloud-based learning, assessment, development, and engagement systems worldwide. It offers Canvas Learning Management System that includes assessments, analytics, and learning content for K-12 and higher education institutions. The company also provides Bridge product, which comprises a learning management system and performance platform that helps employees and managers transform their organization through connection, alignment, and growth. Instructure Holdings, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. JAG CONTRACTORS: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO JIMENEZ, et. al., v. JAG CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00994-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting: -- motion for conditional certification of a collective action, -- identification of potential collective action members, and -- approval of notice to potential collective action members. JAG Contractors is a construction company based in Alexandria, and specializes in Project Management, woodframing, and demolition. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jVG18N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 200 Massachusetts Avenue, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 899-2991 E-mail: rnadas @hfajustice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 Glebe Road, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com JOHNSON HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Treadmills Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Hurston, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, reports that a class action lawsuit alleging that a treadmill manufacturer violated warranties and fraudulently misrepresented its horsepower capabilities outran dismissal in the Western District of Virginia. After allowing the plaintiff to sidestep a jurisdictional roadblock, Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon refused to dismiss all but one of the claims and granted leave to amend the express warranty claim. A treadmill's lifetime and the duration of workouts were too imprecise to establish a written warranty for performance over time. "Not every workout will be same amount of time, and even if that were somehow true, plaintiff has not specified what that amount of time would be," Dillon wrote. The opinion is Prince v. Johnson Health Tech Trading Inc. (VLW 023-3-033). Low performance Johnson Health Tech Trading manufactured treadmills under the name "Horizon Fitness" and advertised that its Horizon 7.8 AT Treadmill could deliver 4.0 continuous duty horsepower, or CHP. Not according to Wendy Prince, who owns one of those treadmills. CHP is a measurement of a treadmill's ability to maintain power over time. While possible for the Horizon treadmill to meet its advertised CHP in a lab, it would only provide a fraction of that for the average user due to its onboard circuit breaker and household electrical limits in the U.S. Prince bought the treadmill on Horizon's website for $1,999. Had she known its true horsepower capabilities, she either wouldn't have bought it or would have paid less. On behalf of herself, as well as putative state and federal classes of purchasers, Prince sued Horizon for breaches of express and implied warranties, constructive fraud and consumer protection. Johnson Health moved to dismiss on subject matter and jurisdictional grounds. Majority view Dillon rejected Johnson Health's argument that Prince didn't have standing to assert claims related to treadmills she didn't buy. Recent cases suggested that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wouldn't follow the minority view presented by Johnson Health, which requires identical products. "Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff has standing to assert claims related to treadmills she did not purchase because the treadmill she purchased is substantially similar to all Horizon treadmills and her claims are substantially similar to those of the other class members," Dillon wrote. MMWA or CAFA? Prince claimed she had jurisdiction to seek warranty damages in federal court under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, or MMWA, even though she didn't have the requisite hundred or more named plaintiffs. Instead, she relied on the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA, which required only that the sum in controversy exceed $5 million and that any plaintiff be a citizen of a different state than any defendant. "At least one court of appeals has held that the MMWA requirements must be met separately from CAFA's jurisdictional requirements," Dillon pointed out. "However, most courts, including those within Fourth Circuit, have held that a class action based on violations of the MMWA may be brought under CAFA even if it may not be brought directly under the MMWA." She added that congress's purpose in enacting CAFA "was 'to expand subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts.' So, once CAFA's requirements have been satisfied, MMWA's additional jurisdictional requirements need not also be satisfied." Thus, Dillon said the court had jurisdiction under CAFA. 'Inherently imprecise' Johnson Health argued that Prince's MMWA express warranty allegations were deficient because they didn't identify a warranty that specifically said the treadmill would "meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time." Prince claimed the treadmill was expected to perform at a specific CHP for a particular period of time each time the machine was used. According to Johnson Health, however, a representation of lifetime or even a single workout's performance couldn't create an express warranty because those are inherently imprecise measurements and not a "specified period of time" under the MMWA. Dillon agreed. "Just like the representation of a lifetime warranty, a warranty that a specific horsepower would last the duration of a person's workout is 'an inherently imprecise measurement' because people tend to work out for different amounts of time," she wrote. The court granted Johnson Health's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Remaining claims Dillon explained that warranty claims in Virginia require a plaintiff to demonstrate that they gave notice to the seller within a reasonable time after discovering a breach. Here, even though Prince didn't say when she discovered the treadmill's deficiency, the judge found Prince's allegations were sufficient and denied Johnson Health's motion to dismiss Prince's state-law warranty claims. Dillon also found that Prince sufficiently pled constructive fraud and VCPA actions and rejected Johnson Health's argument that Prince's constructive fraud claim was barred by the economic loss rule. "While the economic loss rule may prohibit a constructive fraud claim which 'essentially alleges negligent performance of contractual duties,' it will not bar a constructive fraud claim which goes beyond mere 'disappointed economic expectations assumed only by agreement,'" the judge wrote. "Plaintiff describes herself and others similarly situated as more than disappointed consumers but, instead, as victims of an unlawful scheme of false advertising and misrepresentation." Because Prince credibly asserted a claim that can't be barred by the economic loss rule, Dillion denied Johnson Health's motion to dismiss this claim. [GN] JUUL LABS: Settlement in Products Liability Suit Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- Settlement Approval The proposed Class Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as likely to be finally approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and as meriting notice to the Settlement Class for its consideration. This determination is not a final finding that the Settlement or Plan of Allocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate, but it is a determination that good cause exists to disseminate notice to Settlement Class Members in accordance with the Notice Plan and to hold a hearing on final approval of the proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation. -- Class Certification The Settlement Class is defined as: "All individuals who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL product from brick and mortar or online retailers before December 6, 2022." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the judges in this case, and any other judges that may preside (or have presided) over the Litigation, including the coordinated proceeding captioned JUUL Labs Product Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 5052, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los 2 Angeles, Department 11, Settlement Master Thomas J. Perrelli, and their staff, and immediate family members; (b) JLI, any Released Party, and any other named defendant in the litigation; (c) employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies of JLI, any Released Party, and any other named defendant in 6 litigation; (d) Class Counsel and their employees; (e) all purchases for purposes of resale or distribution; and (f) all individuals who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. -- Settlement Administration The Court appoints and designates Epiq Systems, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The Court approves the proposed Notice Plan, including the form, method, and content of the proposed notices (as revised), as well as the proposed claim forms. The claim form and the notices are written in plain language, are easy to comprehend, and comply with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, Rule 23, and any other applicable law. The Court finds that, given the nationwide scope of the litigation and extensive notice being provided, notice via publication in a California newspaper under the CLRA is not required in this case. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company that spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul electronic cigarette, which atomizes nicotine salts derived from tobacco supplied by one-time use cartridges. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xjYxe1 at no extra charge.[CC] KAGAN PROFESSIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kagan Professional Development, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kagan Professional Development, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01073-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kagan -- https://www.kaganonline.com/ -- specializes in staff development and educational resources for teachers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KANSAS CITY TREE : Seeks to Decertify Conditional Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PRINCE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KANSAS CITY TREE CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the conditional class certification previously authorized by the Court on June 15, 2020. Mr. Prince originally filed their lawsuit claiming he had not been paid $1.00 per cubic yard for hauling hurricane damage debris from a collection site to a dump site and for other damages claimed owed to him by the Defendant for his work after Hurricane Michael in Florida. The lawsuit was brought as a collective class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid overtime wages, and monies owed as a "yardage bonus" both on his own behalf, and for all other "similarly situated" workers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/411U2Co at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John Ivan, Esq. 8600 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 308 Shawnee Mission, KS 66202 Telephone: (913) 384-0370 Facsimile: (913) 384-0374 E-mail: johnivanlaw@yahoo.com KASHI SALES: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Entered in Hoffman ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Kashi Sales, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-09642-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered a civil case discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed by: May 26, 2023 -- All expert discovery, including expert Aug. 11, 2023 depositions, shall be completed by: -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures May 26, 2023 shall be made by: -- The Defendant's expert disclosures Aug. 14, 2023 shall be made by: Kashi Sales produces healthy, whole-grain foods such as breakfast cereals, frozen dinners, and granola bars. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YwCpJm at no extra charge.[CC] KC TREE: Prince Seeks to Strike Untimely Bid to Decertify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PRINCE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. KANSAS CITY TREE CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff filed an expedited motion to strike untimely KC Tree's "motion to decertify conditional certification." The deadline for dispositive motions and any motions relating to class certification is January 4, 2023. The parties must follow the summary-judgment guidelines on the court's website. The Court set this deadline at the Final Pretrial Conference attended by KC Tree's counsel. Despite being nearly a month late, KC Tree made no attempt to explain its delay. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xu4uFn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7165 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I.Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com KEVIN RANSOM: Taylor Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN TAYLOR, v. SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN RANSOM, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02070-SHR-SM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Sylvia H. Rambo will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2). The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In accordance with this standard, the Court finds that it would be futile to grant Plaintiff leave to amend with respect to the following claims: any Section 1983 claims against Defendants CDC and Walenski; the First Amendment Section 1983 claim against Defendant Fagan; the FTCA claims; and the claim for monetary relief on behalf of other DOC prisoners. The Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading that stands by itself without reference to the original complaint or any other document already filed. The amended complaint shall set forth Plaintiff's claims in short, concise, and plain statements as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that neither conclusory allegations nor broad allegations will set forth a cognizable claim. The Plaintiff Taylor, who is a convicted and sentenced state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"), is currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Dallas ("SCI Dallas") in Dallas, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff filed his Section 1983 and FTCA complaint in this Court on December 21, 2022. On that same date, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his prisoner trust fund account statement. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YxfdL8 at no extra charge.[CC] KIA CORP: Faces Class Action in Wisconsin Over Car Thefts --------------------------------------------------------- Drew Dawson, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports that a Milwaukee man, who is one in a growing number of car theft victims in the city, has filled a class-action federal lawsuit against automakers Kia and Hyundai. Sebastian Cole filed the suit in Wisconsin's Eastern District on Feb. 17. According to the complaint, Cole's 2018 Kia Forte was stolen in July 2021. The vehicle was recovered later with a broken back right window, its ignition ripped out and damage to the exterior. Multiple items inside also were stolen. Many Kia and Hyundai owners have found themselves the victims of car thefts at an alarming rate in recent years. In Milwaukee, 60 percent of all car thefts involve one of these brands, according to the complaint. Cole's class lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Cole and others who join in the action. They include those who bought or leased a 2011-2022 Kia or a 2015-2022 Hyundai with a "insert-and-turn" key ignition system. These vehicles do not possess immobilizers, which prevent vehicles from being started unless a code is transmitted from its specific smart key, according to the complaint. While the devices are mandatory in vehicles in other countries, they are not specifically required in the U.S. Kia and Hyundai produced vehicle models with immobilizers in other countries during the years outlined in the lawsuit, but didn't in many vehicles sold in the U.S. Some insurers, such as Progressive and State Farm, have begun dropping insurance coverage for these vehicles because of the high rate of thefts involving these models. Milwaukee Alds. Milele Coggs and Khalif Rainey issued a statement last month asking the manufacturers to provide long-term solutions for car owners. The lawsuit cites four counts: breach of implied warrant, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment and product liability and failure to warn. The plaintiffs requested a jury trial. This is the second class action filed against the automakers in the Eastern District. Two Milwaukee County women filed a similar lawsuit in Oct. 2021. Steps to Prevent Car Thefts The Milwaukee Police Department recommends taking these steps to stay safe: * Park in well-lit areas where cameras may be present. * Minimize distractions such as talking on the phone while sitting in a car. * Make sure no valuable items such as purses, money, electronics and guns are visible from within your car. * If a gun is in your car, make sure it is secured in a lock box. * If you see suspicious activity, call Milwaukee police's non-emergency number, 414-933-4444.[GN] KIRKLAND LAKE: Brahms Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Stephen Brahms move the Court for an order: 1. Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) with the class defined as follows: "All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Kirkland stock between January 14, 2019 and November 25, 2019, inclusive;" Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the Defendant Makuch's family, the officers and directors of the Company and members of their immediate families, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest; 2. Appointing the Lead Plaintiff Stephen Brahms as Class Representative of the proposed Class; and 3. Appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IyGWpj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. David Harrison, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com dharrison@lowey.com afarah@lowey.com - and - Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-661-1100 E-mail: mjwernke@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com KNIPSCHILDT/CHOCOPOLOGIE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knipschildt/Chocopologie Worldwide, LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ginger Elizabeth Chocolates, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01106 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Knipschildt/Chocopologie -- https://chocopologie.com/ -- is an award winning artisan chocolate brand, hand crafting the world's best chocolate - shipped nationwide and made to order.[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 L&W LLC: McDowell Sues Over Unlawful Use of Consumer Report ----------------------------------------------------------- Vidal McDowell, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L&W, LLC d/b/a AUTOKINITON, Case No. 2:23-cv-10354-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought seeking statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief under the under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as a result of the Defendants unlawful use of a consumer report. The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on applicants and employees. The FCRA, makes it presumptively unlawful to obtain and use a consumer report for an employment purpose. Such use becomes lawful if and only if the "user" – in this case Defendant – has complied with the FCRA's strict notice requirements. The Defendant willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways, in systematic violation of Plaintiff's rights and the rights of other putative class members. Specifically, Defendant violated the FCRA by denying employment opportunities to Plaintiff based in part or in whole on the results of Plaintiff's consumer report without first providing him notice. The Plaintiff applied for employment and was denied employment with Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a consumer. The Defendant is a Tier 1 automotive supplier operating in multiple locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com LAROSA'S INC: Hawk Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MADISON HAWK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAROSA'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00082-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2023) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Representative Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendant's Jackson, Ohio location within the last three years. She alleges the failure of the Defendant to compensate her appropriately at the minimum wage mandated by the state and federal laws. Larosa's, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in multiple states under the trade name LaRosa's Family Pizzeria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com LASTPASS US: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Andrew Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ANDREW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASTPASS US LP and GOTO TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10338-PBS (D. Mass., Feb. 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract due to Defendants' failure to adequately protect the confidential and sensitive personal identifying information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated LastPass users. The class action is brought on behalf of Class Members whose PII was stolen by online thieves in a cyber-attack during which the cybercriminals accessed customers' PII by way of Defendants' password-protecting software system. The Defendants' failure to adequately implement and maintain data security practices and measures for stored PII directly and proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit. The Defendants' customers nationwide have suffered real and imminent harm as a direct result of Defendants' conduct, including: (a) refusing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems, as well as the data stored therein, were protected from unauthorized third parties; (b) refusing to take appropriate steps to prevent the breach from occurring; (c) failing to disclose to and properly inform its customers of the material facts that it did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard PII; and (d) failing to provide timely and proper notice of the data breach to Plaintiff and the Class, the suit further alleges. LastPass US LP is a software company that provides services to businesses and consumers allowing them to store their passwords and other information in a secure location on the Internet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. Nicole E. Dill, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com pvallely@shulaw.com ndill@shulaw.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law LD'S CAFE: Ballinger Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- GOLDIE BALLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LD'S CAFE, LLC, and LORENZO D BOWCUTT, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00117-DBP (D. Utah, Feb. 16, 2023) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking damages for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for Defendant and paid on a hybrid sub-minimum wage and tips basis. Plaintiff Ballinger was employed as a waitress at Defendants' restaurant located in Richmond, Utah from September 2019 to September 2021. She asserts that by paying her and the putative Collective Action Members less than the applicable minimum wage per hour, Defendants are taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendants to include in their calculation of wages a portion of the amounts she receives as tips. LD's Cafe, LLC operates a chain of restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com LOGAN HOLLOWELL: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Logan Hollowell Jewelry LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Logan Hollowell Jewelry LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01110 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Logan Hollowell Jewelry -- https://www.loganhollowell.com/ -- offers 14k & 18k gold fine jewelry, handmade with magic, based in Venice, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com LVNV FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Snyder ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC and SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-07794-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order: 1. granting LVNV and SAS motion for summary judgment; 2. dismissing the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice; and 3. directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion, enter judgment for Defendants, and close the case. The Defendants did not seek to collect any balance beyond that represented the in the Letter. SAS's records reflect that there was no interest accruing on Plaintiff's account, and Defendants' representatives affirmed that the $2,017.83 was the total due for the debt as of October 2021. The Plaintiff, then, was not faced with an increased payment obligation, but only the risk that in the future Defendants or some other entity would seek more money from her than what she was offered in the Letter. That hypothetical set of circumstances represents only the risk of future harm, and is thus not concrete. The Plaintiff had defaulted on a debt with Capital One Bank, and the debt was eventually transferred to North Star Capital Acquisitions LLC, which obtained a judgment on the debt that was entered on April 13, 2009. LVNV is a third party debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3In47ma at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Willard, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC Hackensack, New Jersey The Defendant is represented by: Brendan H. Little, Esq. LIPPES MATHIAS LLP Buffalo, New York M-I LLC: Seeks Leave to File Objections in Last Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donovin Last, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. M-I, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant file a leave to file a reply in support of its objections to the findings and recommendations. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objections contains gross generalizations and misstatements of fact and law. Additionally, it contains new arguments not previously raised by the Plaintiff in its original briefing of the underlying motion(s), and to which Defendant should be permitted to respond. Due to these factors, as well as the lengthy record before this Court in conjunction with both the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (the latter of which is directly implicated by the former), the Defendant adds. M-I LLC provides services to the oil & gas industry. The Company services include supplying drilling and completion fluid systems and services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YGih7S at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. Robert P. Lombardi, Esq. Maryjo L. Roberts, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 906-4245 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 MADISON SECURITY: Chattman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Chattman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MADISON SECURITY GROUP, Case No. 504380/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought to remedy the Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by failing to provide wage notices and wage statements as required by the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and supporting regulations; failing to pay "spread of hours" premiums; and taking unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the Putative Class's wages. As required by law, a schedule containing the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits ("prevailing wage schedules") to be paid to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees should have been annexed to and formed a part of the Security Contract. If not annexed to the Security Contract, these schedules were expressly or impliedly incorporated into the contracts as a matter of law and public policy. The Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the prevailing rates and supplements to which he was entitled. The Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff proper prevailing wage rates and supplemental benefits were corporate policies that also applied to all of the Defendant's other similarly situated employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between April 2022 and September 2, 2022, as an unarmed security guard. The Defendant is a business that provides various security services, including the assignment of unarmed security personnel, to third parties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis Nick Bittner LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 430-7930 Fax: (646) 349-2504 Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com nbittner@workingsolutionsnyc.com MARCUS POLLARD: Loses Reconsideration Bid on Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. MARCUS POLLARD, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of Order on motion for class certification. In sum, any arguments the Defendants make that the modified definition does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 do not constitute grounds for the court to alter its Class Certification Order. Specifically, the court already considered, in light of the modified definition it had adopted, but nonetheless rejected, Defendants' commonality arguments that: (1) the individual reasonable suspicion component of each class members' individual claims means "there simply is no possible common contention that could resolve the cases in one stroke," (2) the differing accounts surrounding the strip search Plaintiff was subjected to weigh against certification; and (3) there is no clear policy or practice at RJD of performing strip searches without reasonable suspicion that "can serve as the glue to tie together all of the putative class members' claims." The Plaintiff raised common questions regarding the existence of a systematic failure to follow procedures and the presence of practices that allegedly injured Plaintiff and the putative class. Thus, nothing in the motion for reconsideration persuades the court to depart from its earlier finding regarding predominance. Likewise, the court continues to believe, Defendants' mischaracterization notwithstanding, that a class action provides the most superior way to proceed in this instance. The motion has been fully briefed and the court finds it suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Ms. Fitzgerald sought to represent a Class consisting of: "those visitors to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in the Class Period who were required to submit to an unclothed search as a condition to visiting an inmate and whose Notice of Request for Search Form states no specific objective facts and rational inferences establishing individualized reasonable suspicion to believe that the person targeted for the search had an intention of smuggling contraband into the Prison." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E6S3mB at no extra charge.[CC] MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Marygold Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that the Company intends to defend itself against the amended Lucas class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. About Marygold Cos. Inc. Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs of Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users. Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command. [BN] MASTERCARD INC: Summary Judgment Briefing to End July ----------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the summary judgment briefing for the Antitrust Suit Over Bank Card Issue to end in July 2023. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation described above. In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification and in January 2021, the Network Defendants' request for permission to appeal that decision was denied. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages. Briefing on summary judgment is scheduled to conclude in July 2023. Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments industry based in New York. MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Bid to File Second Amended Class Action Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT, INC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.),the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended class action complaint. The amended claims against the individual directors remain inadequately individualized, and the amended putative class claims against Matterport under the SAMP Act and Section 17500 remain time-barred. Following the Court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant company and its individual directors' motion to dismiss, plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended class action complaint. Lynch filed suit in the Superior Court of California against Matterport and seven members of its board of directors, bringing claims on behalf of himself and three putative classes of individuals who became MSPs. After Lynch amended his complaint, Matterport and its individual directors removed the action to federal court. They then moved to dismiss all of Lynch's claims against the individual directors, all of Lynch's claims on behalf of two putative classes, as well as select claims against Matterport. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xnZD8w at no extra charge.[CC] MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Learned Suit Transferred to E.D California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eryn Learned, Rhett Fussell, Dennis Montalbano, Iris Sheehan, Douglas Sheets, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. McClatchy Company LLC, Case No. 0:23-mc-00007 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-00054-DAD-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The McClatchy Company -- https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- is an American publishing company incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and based in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com The Defendant is represented by: Tina Syring-Petrocchi, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 90 South 7th Street, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 428-5032 Email: tina.syring@lewisbrisbois.com MDL 3059: 5 Meat Substitute Product Suits Consolidated to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Beyond Meat, Inc., Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 3059, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 2 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and one each from the Southern District of Iowa, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, all to the Northern District of Illinois, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Sara L. Ellis for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All parties support centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. Alternatively, plaintiffs suggest the Southern District of New York as the transferee district. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Beyond Meat, which markets and sells plant-based meat substitutes, that it (1) miscalculates and overstates its products' protein content, (2) miscalculates and overstates the quality of the products' protein, which is represented as a percentage of daily value and (3) misleads consumers into believing that the products provide the same nutritional benefits as traditional meat products. According to the panel, these actions, thus, will entail common discovery regarding the protein in the products as well as Beyond Meat's advertising and labeling practices. All the actions are putative consumer class actions asserting substantially similar claims for violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of warranties, and unjust enrichment. The putative nationwide and state classes overlap to a large extent. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification motions and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 order is available at bit.ly/3kf3jqd MDL 3060: Nine Hair Relaxer Product Suits Consolidated to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers five cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two from the Southern District of Georgia and one each from the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York, all to the Northern District of Illinois, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Mary M. Rowland for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in four actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of California moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois while responding defendants (L'Oreal USA, Inc., L'Oreal USA Products, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and SoftSheen-Carson W.I., Inc., Dabur International Ltd. and Namaste Laboratories, LLC, Strength of Nature, LLC, Strength of Nature Global, LLC, and Godrej SON Holdings, Inc., and House of Cheatham) opposed the motion but, in the event of centralization, requested centralization in the Southern District of New York or, alternatively, in the Northern District of Illinois. Two additional defendants named in certain of the actions, PDC Brands and Parfums de Coeur, Ltd., did not enter an appearance. In October 17, 2022, a study led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported findings that women who frequently used chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who did not use such products. These actions, filed shortly thereafter, share common questions of fact arising from allegations that defendants' hair relaxer products contain phthalates, including di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and that the use of such products caused or increased the risk of developing uterine, ovarian, or breast cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or other injuries to the reproductive system. Plaintiffs assert overlapping products liability claims and consumer protection claims. Defendants argued that the actions involve numerous disparate questions of fact and that centralization will provide few efficiencies. They point out that the actions name multiple competing defendants who manufactured and sold different lines of hair relaxer products, and that plaintiffs allege multiple different injuries. They contend as well that plaintiffs have not identified a single EDC common to all hair relaxer products that is alleged to have caused the injuries at issue. The panel concluded that centralization will obviate the risk of duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings on pretrial issues such as what level of exposure to phthalates or other EDCs poses a risk of reproductive injury, and what obligation, if any, defendants had to disclose the presence of such chemicals in their hair relaxer products. The parties in all actions are likely to use many of the same experts, particularly with respect to the risks of exposure to phthalates and other EDCs. It will also minimize duplication of this expert discovery as well as pretrial motion practice related to expert issues and prevent inconsistent rulings with respect to class certification. Since the filing of the motion, this litigation has grown from nine actions pending in four districts to 53 involved actions in 19 districts. Most of the actions name multiple sets of defendants, and nearly all name the L'Oreal defendants. In addition, most plaintiffs allege exposure to multiple different product lines. According to movants, this is because women who use hair relaxers typically use different product lines over the course of their lives; hence, any future related actions are likely to involve multiple defendants and product lines as well. As such, declining to centralize this litigation would not resolve the complexities presented by managing cases involving multiple defendants and products, rather, judges in nineteen (or more) different districts would be required to manage such cases, while addressing overlapping parties, facts, and claims. A full-text copy of the court's February 6, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3060-Transfer_Order-1-23.pdf MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sowa Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander Sowa, Stephen V. Caggiano, Edward Michael Jacobs, Park C. Thomas, Raymond Robinson, Thomas Koby, Yauwen Lin, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00636-SEG (N.D. Ga., Feb. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Breach of Warranty. Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury with performance across the full line of models including luxury sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN-TN 150 4th Avenue, N., Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Email: akaufman@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASHER, HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP-NY 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Ketan A. Patel, Esq. CORPUS LAW PATEL 303 Peachtree St, N.E., Suite 4100 PO BOX 724713 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (678) 597-8020 Email: kp@corpus-law.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Vehicle Subframes Prone to Rust, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ collisionrepairmag.com reports that luxury automaker Mercedes-Benz appears to have run afoul of some customers who allege the automaker broke consumer fraud laws by failing to address rust and corrosion of the subframe on a number of models from the past decade. According to a Feb. 10 press release, the law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Corpus Law Patel LLC are taking the German OEM to task in Georgia federal district court amid allegations that 2010 to 2022 editions of C, E, GLK, G, CLS SLK/SLC, and SL class models are prone to premature rust corrosion. The suit alleges that Mercedes has known about the defect for several years; a claim supported by documented complaints sent not just to Mercedes, but federal safety regulators like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); and refuses to compensate customers for the necessary repairs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that "despite Mercedes' refusal to acknowledge the defect or pay for the repairs it requires, Mercedes' authorized dealers have told owners who complain that premature subframe corrosion is a common problem with Mercedes vehicles," read a portion of the press release. "The complaint explains that, because corrosion occurs 'from the inside out,' the defect is not apparent even to a trained mechanic until the rear subframe is dangerously corroded, near total failure, and has rendered the vehicle unsafe to operate. Replacing the rear subframe typically costs from $3,500 to more than $7,000. "The lawsuit seeks an order that Mercedes-Benz fully acknowledges the rear subframe defect in its vehicles, warn all owners affected by the defect, void any would-be limitations expressed in the vehicle warranties that would let it avoid responsibility for the defect, as well as injunctive relief requiring Mercedes to reassess all prior warranty claims related to the rear subframe defect, to refrain from further deceptive sales practices with respect to the affected vehicles, and to pay for inspection and all repair and related costs owners incurred as a result of the defect." [GN] META PLATFORMS: Tribunal Averts $3.7-Bil. Class Action in Britain ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Facebook on Feb. 20 temporarily fought off a collective lawsuit valued at up to 3 billion pounds ($3.7 billion) over allegations the social media giant abused its dominant position to monetize users' personal data. However, a London tribunal gave the proposed claimants' lawyers up to six months to "have another go" at establishing any alleged losses by users. Meta Platforms, the parent company of the Facebook group, faces a mass action brought on behalf of around 45 million Facebook users in Britain. Legal academic Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, who is bringing the case, says Facebook users were not properly compensated for the value of personal data they had to provide to use the platform. Her lawyers last month asked the Competition Appeal Tribunal to certify the case under the UK's collective proceedings regime -- which is roughly equivalent to the class action regime in the United States. But the Tribunal ruled on Feb. 20 that Lovdahl Gormsen's methodology of establishing any losses suffered by Facebook users needed "root-and-branch re-evaluation" for the case to continue. Judge Marcus Smith did, however, give Lovdahl Gormsen's lawyers six months to "file additional evidence setting out a new and better blueprint leading to an effective trial". A spokesperson for Meta said the company welcomed the decision and referred to its previous statement that the lawsuit is "entirely without merit". Lawyers representing Lovdahl Gormsen did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] MIDJOURNEY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement ------------------------------------------------------------ Yossy Mendelovich of Y.M. Cinema Magazine reports that Midjourney is being class-action sued for severe copyright infringements. A huge and significant lawsuit is on its way to AI imagery generators, with the goal of defending artists. A class action was filed against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for DMCA violations, right of publicity violations, and unlawful competition. Artists must be compensated and protected. The Class-Action lawsuit against AI-imagery generators. It is time to protect the artists for their great and important work. The class-action lawsuit was filed by Joseph Saveri Law Firm and Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. As stated in the abstract: "Stability AI Ltd.; Stability AI, Inc.; Midjourney Inc.; and DeviantArt, Inc. have created products that infringe the rights of artists and other creative individuals under the guise of alleged "artificial intelligence." The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP -- a leading class action firm with offices in California and New York -- along with Matthew Butterick, and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. have led a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages caused by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney, and an injunction to prevent future harms. The lawsuit alleges 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". These AI generators utilized a methodology called Stable Diffusion in order to produce 'new' pictures from other copyrighted pictures, based on text description (prompt). As described in the lawsuit: "Stable Diffusion is an artificial intelligence product used by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney in their AI image products. It was trained on billions of copyrighted images contained in the LAION-5B dataset, which were downloaded and used without compensation or consent from the artists. If Stable Diffusion and similar products are allowed to continue to operate as they do now, the foreseeable result is they will replace the very artists whose stolen works power these AI products with whom they are competing. AI image products are not just an infringement of artists' rights; whether they aim to or not, these products will eliminate "artist" as a viable career path. In addition to obtaining redress for the wrongful conduct, this lawsuit seeks to prevent that outcome and ensure these products follow the same rules as any other new technology that involves the use of massive amounts of intellectual property. If streaming music can be accomplished within the law, so can AI products”. According to the lawsuit: "Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt are appropriating the work of thousands of artists with no consent, no credit, and no compensation". Stable Diffusion is an artificial intelligence product used by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney in their AI image products. It was trained on billions of copyrighted images contained in the LAION-5B dataset, which were downloaded and used without compensation or consent from the artists. If Stable Diffusion and similar products are allowed to continue to operate as they do now, the foreseeable result is they will replace the very artists whose stolen works power these AI products with whom they are competing. As explained in the lawsuit, Midjourney (and we'll take Midjourney as our main reference due to its insane popularity) takes its 'AI inspiration' from an actual vast database of pictures -- almost 6 billion copyrighted pictures. This database is called LAION-5B and it is composed of pictures paired with descriptive text. In fact, we found a lot of YMCinema pictures on it, of course without getting our permission. And those pictures are utilized when the prompt is written, in order to create other pictures. These copyrighted pictures were trained, downloaded, and 'diffused', in order to create other pictures from a textual description. That would be called 'generalization'. Those AI products could not exist without the work of painters, illustrators, photographers, sculptors, and other artists. Comprehensive research has proved that pictures created from Midjourney were utilized from other pictures made by artists. As stated in the research: "Beyond data privacy, understanding how and why diffusion models memorize training data may help us understand their generalization capabilities. For instance, a common question for large-scale generative models is whether their impressive results arise from truly novel generations, or are instead the result of direct copying and remixing of their training data. By studying memorization, we can provide a concrete empirical characterization of the rates at which generative models perform such data copying". Then it adds: "AI image generators can "memorize" images from the data they're trained on. Instead of creating something completely new, certain prompts will get the AI to simply reproduce an image. Some of these recreated images could be copyrighted. But even worse, modern AI generative models have the capability to memorize and reproduce sensitive information scraped up for use in an AI training set". [GN] MONTREAL, QC: Mayor Testifies Over Racial Discrimination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Lowrie of The Canadian Press report that Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante told a court on February 15, 2023 that victims of racial profiling have the right to compensation, but it needs to be awarded based on a rigorous process to avoid throwing taxpayer money "out the window. Plante was testifying in a class-action lawsuit that claims the city hasn't acted to combat systemic racial profiling by its police officers. The mayor told the judge she has no trouble admitting that social and racial profiling are real. "And people who live it, it's terrible, and they have to ask for compensation. They have to go forward to exercise their rights for equitable treatment," she said. "Neither I, nor the city of Montreal, nor the (Montreal police) question that." However, Plante seemed to suggest that compensation needs to be handed out on an individual basis, after a person has demonstrated that they've been wronged. Such an approach, she said, is more mindful of taxpayer money and also allows the Montreal police to better review their practices. "In any society, in ours, we have to be able to compensate if needed, but we can't throw money out the window either," she said. She added that there are already mechanisms in place to address injustices, including the police ethics committee and the province's human rights commission. The lawsuit heard by Quebec Superior Court Justice Dominique Poulin is led by the Black Coalition of Quebec and Alexandre Lamontagne, a Black man who alleges he was brutally arrested and detained by Montreal police outside a bar in 2017 without any valid reason. Court documents say he was originally charged with assault and obstructing the work of police officers, but those charges were dropped the following year. They're asking that a total $171 million be awarded to racialized people who were arrested or detained by Montreal police without reason between August 2017, when Lamontagne was arrested, and January 2019. During her testimony, Plante fielded repeated questions by a lawyer for the plaintiffs about why numerous reports show visible minorities are still treated unequally in Montreal, more than 30 years after the city made its first public commitment to tackle racial discrimination. Plante told the court the city is a reflection of society as a whole, and that tackling the problem is multi-faceted and complex, encompassing areas such as policing, housing, employment and education. "I'll be honest with you Madame judge, if there was a magic wand to fix this, we would do it," Plante said. The mayor pushed back on suggestions that the city and police haven't acted to address social and racial discrimination and profiling. She noted the city has committed to adopting all 38 recommendations from a 2020 public consultation on systemic racism, including appointing a commissioner to oversee anti-racism efforts. The police, for their part, have created new policies outlining how they can stop people after a 2019 report that found Black, Arab and Indigenous Montrealers were several times more likely to be intercepted by police than their white counterparts, she said. While she described the city as a "leader" in anti-discrimination efforts, Plante was unable to give details on how much progress had been made in implementing the recommendations. "As mayor I'm there to give the vision, the political orientations, but when we get into the implementation, it's hard to give a concrete answer as to where we are," she said. Both Lamontagne and his lawyer, Mike Diomande, reacted positively to Plante's testimony. Diomande said the mayor's statements show she and his clients are "speaking the same language, even if we're taking different paths." "At the end of the day, we have the impression it will overlap because we're saying the same things and are carried by the same hopes for change," he said outside the court. Lamontagne said he was encouraged to hear the mayor recognize the existence of racial profiling and acknowledge the need for compensation for those who were wronged. [GN] MONUMENT INC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Mansfield, Esq., in an article for LegalScopps, disclosed that on February 2, 2023, four members of the United States Senate sent a letter to Monument Inc. (also known as Monument Telehealth Group) where they "express our concern regarding reports that Monument is tracking and sharing sensitive and personally identifiable health data with third-party social media and online search platforms such as Google and Facebook that monetize this data to target advertisements," using what is known as the Meta Pixel tracking cookie. The Senators expressed concern that more than 30,000 patients used Monument's website as of 2021. Monument is a virtual substance abuse treatment center based in New York but operates nationwide through the website joinmonument.com. Monument provides referral services for online alcohol and treatment program services. It claims to be "The gold standard in alcohol treatment. . . . designed to get you meaningful results even if you're short on time and don't have the budget for expensive treatment programs or alcohol rehab . . . . [with] plans [that] work around your schedule, and are price competitive with or without insurance." Monument offers online alcohol therapy, medication to stop drinking, a 24/7 anonymous forum, and online alcohol support groups. On Monument's website, patients are asked to answer a series of questions about their alcohol use and mental health. Although Monument's website also claims that "any information you enter with Monument is 100% confidential, secure, and HIPAA compliant," this information is reportedly sent to advertising platforms, along with the information required to identify users. Such data is highly personal and can be used to target advertisements for services that may be unnecessary or that, according to the U.S. Senate, may be "potentially harmful physically, psychologically, or emotionally." The Senate request for information comes shortly after the FTC obtained a $1.5 million penalty and an agreement against GoodRx barring the company from sharing users' sensitive health data with third-party advertisers. If you have used Monument's services over the last two years, your personal information may have been sold to third-party advertisers such as Facebook and Google without your informed consent. Your right to compensation under California law California's privacy laws specifically protect your personal information. These laws include: The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) makes it unlawful for businesses to engage in electronic "wiretapping" without consent or help other entities, like Facebook, intercept electronic communications without consumer consent. The CIPA may entitle consumers to $5,000 or three times their damages, whichever is greater. The Confidential Medical Information Act (CMIA) protects confidential health-related information. The CMIA prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing patient information without authorization. The CMIA may entitle consumers to $1,000 without proof of any monetary damages. It is unclear at this time whether the information provided to companies due to these tracking pixels violated that law. An investigation into exactly what information was provided to third parties is ongoing. Depending on the nature of the disclosures, you may be entitled to $1,000 or more, or your actual damages, whichever is greater, depending on which California laws this conduct may have violated. Participants can recover damages, injunctive relief (to ensure the business has reasonable security practices to protect consumer data), and anything else necessary to compensate victims and prevent these harms from occurring again. Experienced class action attorneys can help you exercise your rights, evaluate your options and decide whether you are entitled to compensation. You have no out-of-pocket costs, as we only get paid if we prevail. Fill out the form below for free information on how to seek compensation by joining a class action, or call 1-844-273-2248. This data has significant value, as evidenced by what Monument has done to allow companies like Facebook and Google to access your personal information. If you have used Monument's services over the last two years, your personal information may have been sold to third-party advertisers without your informed consent. [GN] MOUNT ST. MARYS SEMINARY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount St. Marys Seminary, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Mount St. Marys Seminary, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01132 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mount St. Mary's Seminary -- https://seminary.msmary.edu/index.html -- is a school of faith, discipleship and learning that prepares men for the Catholic ministerial priesthood.[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 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for April 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the dismissal motion hearing of the Schaub class suit is set for April 14, 2023 at the United States District Court Central District of California. On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the "Schaub Lawsuit"). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the Court issued an order consolidating the Schaub Lawsuit with the case captioned David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.), and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On September 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") against the Company, Mr. Michery, and the Company's predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 22, 2022, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for April 14, 2023. Mullen Automotive, Inc. is a development-stage electronic vehicle manufacturer. MUTUAL MANAGEMENT: Strano Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mutual Management Services, LLC. The case is styled as Marcelo Ezequiel Strano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mutual Management Services, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20560-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mutual Management Services is a debt collection agency dedicated to the successful recovery of your outstanding receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com NAOMI WHITTEL BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naomi Whittel Brands LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Naomi Whittel Brands LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01150 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Naomi Whittel -- https://naomiw.com/ -- offers health products including vitamins and other supplements for wellbeing such as teas, coconut / MCT oils, skin care and GLOW15 products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com NATIONAL RECOVERY: Roth Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Recovery Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Chana Roth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Recovery Agency, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-01127 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Recovery Agency -- https://www.nationalrecovery.com/ -- is a nationwide provider of accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sweeney, et al., File Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Marshall, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Nationwide Savings Plan, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Nationwide Life Insurance Company; and the Investment Committee of the Nationwide Savings Plan, David Berson, David LaPaul, Kevin O'Brien, Klaus Diem, Michael Mahaffey, and Michael P. Leach, Case No. 2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the following class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Nationwide Savings Plan who were invested in the Guaranteed Fund at any time from March 26, 2014 through the date of final judgment in this action, excluding the individual Defendants;" 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Zagrans Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products that protect your many sides. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xqeyiK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC 1640 Roundwyck Lane Columbus, OH 43065-8416 Telephone: (440) 452-7100 E-mail: eric@zagrans.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Eleanor Frisch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW ● Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com krichter@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com efrisch@cohenmilstein.com NELNET SERVICING: Miller Consolidated with Data Security Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03193 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Miller suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lxbgaE at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Sayers Consolidated with Data Security Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sayers, et al., v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03203 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Sayers suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. NELNET SERVICING: Spearman Consolidated with Data Security Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spearman, et al., v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03191 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Spearman suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. NELNET SERVICING: Varlotta Consolidated with Data Security Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varlotta v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03188 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Varlotta suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lmmDSA at no extra charge.[CC] NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Strusowski Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nemours Foundation. The case is styled as Benjamin Strusowski, Allison Clauges, for themselves and others similarly situated v. Nemours Foundation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00537 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Nemours -- https://www.nemours.org/ -- is a pediatric health system committed to children's health care in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Costa, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, RPC One South Broad St., 23rd Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 567-6565 Email: pcosta@finekaplan.com NEW POWER ZX: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Adkins Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SELAH ADKINS, individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW POWER ZX, LLC, D/B/A ZAXBY'S RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00062 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 15, 2023) is brought against the Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees. Plaintiff Adkins was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee and worked at one of Defendant's Zaxby's franchised restaurants. The Plaintiff alleges that she and those similarly situated were required to work "off the clock" within weekly pay periods without being compensated at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for such work hours during all times material to this action. New Power ZX, LLC owns and operates several Zaxby's franchised restaurants across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Tosses Dunn Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERELLE DUNN, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-09012-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' October 24, 2022 motion for class certification. The motion became fully submitted on December 19. Oral argument on the motion was held on February 2, 2023. It is hereby ordered that for the reasons stated on the record at the February 2, 2023 oral argument, the motion is denied, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EBF7Wf at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Entered in D.M Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.M., et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00759-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- The class action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. -- If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228 immediately. The New York City Department of Education is the department of the government of New York City that manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YyQUfT at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Heggs, et al., Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILAN HEGGS, ROY BECKFORD and PHILIP LEGREE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situation, and DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK, and DISABLED IN ACTION, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE (NYPD), COMMISSIONER JAMES P. O'NEILL; NYPD COMMISSIONER DERMOT F. SHEA; NYPD OFFICER (P.O.) ROBERT BERNHARDT; P.O. MOORAN, P.O. SLATER; JOHN DOES 1-8, Case No. 1:17-cv-03234-DG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, for an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for such other and further relief as is just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KaxPfD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Rankin, Esq. Jeffrey F. Kinkle, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 277-5825 E-mail: drankinl@blhny.com - and - Michael L. Spiegel, Esq. 48 Wall Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 587-8558 E-mail: mikespieg@aol.com - and - Emma Noftz Stern, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 545-0387 E-mail: Emma.Stern@drny.org NEW YORK: Flores, et al., Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS FLORES, LAWRENCE BARTLEY, ANTONIO ROMAN, DEMETRIUS BENNETT, VINTARRA MARTIN, and TERRANCE ANDERSON, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TINA M. STANFORD, as Chairwoman of the New York State Board of Parole; and WALTER W. SMITH, JOSEPH P. CRANGLE, MARC COPPOLA, TANA AGOSTINI, CHARLES DAVIS, CAROL SHAPIRO, ERIK BERLINER, OTIS CRUSE, CARYNE DEMOSTHENES, MICHAEL CORLEY, SHEILA SAMUELS, ELSIE SEGARRA, CARLTON MITCHELL, TYECE DRAKE, and CHANWOO LEE, as Chairwoman of the New York State Board of Parole, Case No. 7:18-cv-02468-VB-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order denying without prejudice to renewal the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- Defendants' motion for summary judgment: May 2, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' opposition is due: June 16, 2023 -- Defendants' reply is due: June 14,2023 The New York State Board of Parole is the sole entity with discretionary authority to grant release to eligible individuals incarcerated with New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XxlHZb at no extra charge.[CC] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Families Recall Evacuations in Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Reiner and Joe Gorman at wkbn.com reports that East Palestine families who live near the train derailment site shared their evacuation stories in the latest class action lawsuit. The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Northern District Court of Ohio. According to court records, Jessica Davis and Gerald Heaton are an engaged couple who live together with their children in the one mile radius from the train derailment. At around 9 or 10 p.m. on February 3, Jessica received an alert on her phone that she needed to evacuate her house immediately. After seeing the blaze, Jessica Davis and Gerald Heaton woke up their children and they drove several miles away to get away from the fire. Their children are 6 and 7 years old. Reports said that they parked the car for several hours to get some rest. Records said that around 4 a.m. on February 4 the family returned home because they thought it was safe to do so. After hearing loud explosions, Jessica was told about the train derailment by a family member. At the time, reports said that the family was unaware of possible hazardous chemicals. After watching a press conference stating the mandatory evacuation for East Palestine residents, the family moved to the residence of a friend in Leetonia. On February 6 the family was notified that roads in East Palestine were going to be blocked, so they picked up their dogs at their home. The families then stayed at several hotels between February 6-February 10. When the family returned on February 10, records said that their house smelled like chemicals similar to nail polish. Reports said that one of the children had an emergency asthma attack. On February 13, a pediatrician confirmed that the children tested negative for strep, but that their sore throats, headaches and eye irritation could have been caused by the train derailment Records say that the children also suffered psychological trauma as a result of the incident. The family continues to suffer with physical symptoms, economic loss and emotional distress as a result of the derailment. There were two other families included in the lawsuit. Records indicate that Christopher Ammon, Anita Ammon and Chase Ammon live together approximately 1-2 miles outside of the 1-mile Train Derailment evacuation zone. Even though they were outside of the evacuation zone and not required to leave, they fled due to the derailed tank being ignited in the area. Reports said that the family is feet away from a creek that is filled entirely with dead fish. The family is using bottled water to drink and cook. The other family lives 1.4 miles from the derailment in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Todd Hart and his wife Heidi were fearful of propane tanks exploding because of the derailment, so they along with their two young children went to Heidi's mother's home. After learning that their house was on the border of the evacuation site, the family decided to evacuate their home and found shelter at the Fairfield Suites in Monaca, Pennsylvania from February 5, 2023, until February 7, 2023. The family returned home on February 7 after keeping up with news coverage. Reports said that the family remains anxious as a result of the train derailment and is fearful of water contamination, air quality and their home's value. Three additional lawsuits were also filed in U.S. Court. Ayisa Canterbury of Columbiana County and Lisa Sodergen of Pennsylvania filed their own suit seeking damages. They are represented by Covington, Ky., attorney Jesse Shore. Another suit was filed by East Palestine residents Jessica Paris, Gerald Heaton and two minor children, Anthony and Chase Ammon and Todd Hart. Columbus-based attorney Andrew S. Baker is representing them. Krtistin Battaglia and Margo Zuch-Battaglia, both from East Palestine, filed suit on behalf of themselves and their minor children as well as Dawn Baughman, also of East Palestine. They are represented by a law firm in Sandusky. All of the class action cases have been assigned to U.S. Judge Benita Y. Pearson. Hearing dates have yet to be set.[GN] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Kinder Derailment Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHASE KINDER and CHERI KINDER, individually and d/b/a as Bird Dog Hill Kennels, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; STONYBROOK KENNEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; PAMELA TAAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2023 CV 00058, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Feb. 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00292-JRA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks redress for individuals and businesses that were exposed to massive amounts of vinyl chloride and other toxic chemicals after the February 3, 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Norfolk Southern Corporation engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. Lawson Johnston, Esq. Scott D. Clements, Esq. DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-7272 NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 20 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) resulting from allegations that Norfolk Southern may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Norfolk Southern securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12322 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, releasing toxins and other combustible liquids in the process, which ultimately led to a controlled burn of toxic chemicals. The derailment prompted the evacuation of residents from the surrounding area. Norfolk Southern faces numerous lawsuits and investigations from regulators and individuals. Norfolk Southern's stock price has declined from a closing price of $254.18 per share on February 2, 2023, just prior to the derailment, to a closing price of $228.15 per share on February 17, 2023, a 10.5% decline. 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. 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts 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] NUVASIVE INC: M&A Firm Continues Investigation of Globus Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: NuVasive, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUVA), relating to its proposed sale to Globus Medical, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, NUVA shareholders are expected to receive 0.75 shares of Globus per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nuvasive-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341[GN] OLD COPPER: Sued Over Website's Fictitious Original Price Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that JCPenney advertises fictitious original prices for products on its website so that its sale prices appear to consumers like better discounts than they actually are, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Maria Carranza claims JCPenney misleads consumers about the market value of products it allegedly gives an inflated original price, in order to persuade them to make a purchase. Carranza argues JCPenney does further harm by allegedly artificially inflating the true market price of the products, which in turn raises a consumers' "internal reference price" of what it should cost. "False reference pricing schemes enable retailers, like Defendants, to sell products above their true market price and value -- and consumers are left to pay the price," the JCPenney class action states. Carranza wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased a product from JCPenney's website that was sold at a discount from an advertised reference price, and who have not received a refund or credit for said purchase(s). JCPenney tricks consumers to 'increase sales and profits,' class action says JCPenney chooses to list false original prices for its products because they know doing so will allow them to "increase sales and profits by tricking consumers," the JCPenney class action alleges. "The information available to consumers varies . . . nonetheless, consumers frequently lack full information about products and as a result often use information from sellers to make purchase decisions," the JCPenney class action states. Carranza claims JCPenney is in violation of California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of actual, statutory, and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In October, JCPenney was part of a recall for children's pajamas and bathrobes sold by the company -- along with Amazon -- over concerns they violated flammability standards and could present a burn hazard. The plaintiff is represented by Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G. Braden of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The JCPenney discounts class action lawsuit is Carranza, et al. v. Old Copper Co. Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00276, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] OLD SOUL'S: Filing of Conditional Class Status Bid Due April 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis, et al., v. Old Soul's Farm, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00141 (S.D.. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered an order extending the cut-off date for filing a motion for conditional class certification to April 3, 2023. As stated in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order, a Telephone Scheduling Conference shall be set upon this Court's ruling on the motion for conditional class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Renewed Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al., v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order denying: -- the Plaintiffs' combined motion for reconsideration and renewed motion for Rule 23 Class Certification; and -- the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Class Certification The Court exhaustively reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and concluded that the FLPA transportation charge subclass claims will require extensive amounts of individualized proof that would predominate. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' contention that the issue can be resolved "solely by reference to Defendants' records." Instead, resolving the issue will require an unmanageable amount of individualized proof to establish both liability and damages, making class certification inappropriate. The Plaintiffs argue that because the claims of all Plaintiffs will "rise and fall on common evidence and application of a uniform body of law" the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1)(B) are satisfied. Once again, the common evidence element is missing. The Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Pacesetter has withdrawn its request for reconsideration of the order certifying the Commercial Boulevard sub-class, but requests that Plaintiffs be required to file a trial plan. The Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its holding that individual issues predominate with respect to Plaintiffs' proposed class under the Florida Labor Pool Act ("FLPA") or, in the alternative, that the class be certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (2) grounds. Specifically, with respect to the FLPA claims, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in declining to certify a subclass of workers who were charged in excess of $3.00 day for transportation. Pacesetter Personnel Services is a staffing agency for temporary labor. They provide custom staffing, labor, and administration. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40RamWy at no extra charge.[CC] PEACH SKIN: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Mejia Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Mejia, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Peach Skin Sheets LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05372-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join Nov. 17, 2022 additional parties shall be filed no later than: -- Initial disclosures pursuant Oct. 31, 2022 to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than -- All fact discovery is to be May 22, 2022 completed no later than: Peach Skin is a boutique brand of luxury bed sheets A copy of the Court's orderdated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IpzRae at no extra charge.[CC] PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: April 3 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 3, 2023 in the case-captioned Kohl, et al. v. Pluris Wedgefield LLC, et al., Case No. 2020-CA-004390-O, in the Florida Circuit Court for Orange County. Pluris Wedgefield will pay $3.3 million to resolve claims it introduced water contaminants through the disinfection process. The settlement benefits residential customers who paid for water distributed by Pluris Wedgefield between April 12, 2016, and Dec. 29, 2022. According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Pluris Wedgefield introduced dangerous contaminants into drinking water through its disinfecting processes. Although the process removed microbial contaminants such as viruses, Pluris Wedgefield allegedly introduced byproduct contaminants above the levels allowed under state and federal laws. Pluris is a water and wastewater utility company. The company provides water services in four states -- Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and Texas. Pluris Wedgefield hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.3 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund. No payment estimates are available at this time. In addition to providing cash benefits, Pluris Wedgefield agreed to pay for regular water testing approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Plaintiffs in the case will also have the opportunity to conduct their own regular testing up to four times per calendar year. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 6, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 3, 2023. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Residential customers who paid for water distributed by Pluris Wedgefield between April 12, 2016, and Dec. 29, 2022. Settlement Website WedgefieldWaterSettlement.com Claims Administrator Kohl v. Pluris Wedgefield Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990 Info@WedgefieldWaterSettlement.com 888-708-6741 Class Counsel Matthew S Mokwa THE MAHER LAW FIRM PA HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC NORMAND PLLC Defense Counsel David B Weinstein Christopher White GREENBERG TRAURIG Cari K Dawson Jenny A Hergenrother ALSTON & BIRD LLP [GN] POWER PARAGON: Hearing on Bid for Class Certification Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BURNS in his individual and representative capacities, v. POWER PARAGON, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01452-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order granting stipulation to vacate hearing on motion for class certification and case for settlement purposes only. 1. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification set for February 3, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. is vacated. 2. The action shall be remanded to the Orange County Superior Court for purposes of approval of the parties' settlement only. Power Paragon provides engineering, development, manufacture, and integration of power conversion and distribution systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YW2a5t at no extra charge.[CC] PTT LLC: Compelled to Produce Documents --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN WILSON, v. PTT, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to compel. The Defendant shall complete production of all documents responsive to RFP No. 67 within 21 days of the Order. The Plaintiff has alleged both per se and direct violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, a fact recognized by the Court when granting class certification and denying preliminary injunctive relief. PTT LLC doing business as High 5 Games, operates as an independent casino games provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K7OQqP at no extra charge.[CC] RAGAN & RAGAN: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFANO RUBINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAGAN & RAGAN, P.C.; Case No. 2:21-cv-20288-AME (), the Parties file a joint motion for final approval of class action settlement. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7z5wg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason M. Myers, Esq. LONDON FISCHER, LLP 59 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 972 1000 Facsimile: (212) 972 1030 E-mail: jmyers@londonfischer.com REBBL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Roffman Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEHVA ROFFMAN, v. REBBL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-05290-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss The Court said, "If Roffman chooses to amend, she shall file an amended complaint by no later than February 22, 2023, and Rebbl shall answer or otherwise respond within the time permitted under the Federal Rules. Pending further Order of the Court, the initial case management calendar remains scheduled for February 24, 2023 at 11:00 a.m." The court orders the parties to file an updated joint case management conference statement by February 17, 2023. Roffman argues that Sonner is distinguishable because of the procedural posture of that case, but this Court does not find that argument persuasive. Roffman does allege that "if the Court requires [her and the putative class] to show classwide reliance and materiality beyond the objective reasonable consumer standard" and that if she and the putative class are not able to demonstrate the requisite mens rea, they may be unable to obtain damages. The Court concludes the "allegations do not establish that the damages she seeks are necessarily inadequate or incomplete. That is, [Roffman's]' inability to obtain damages here [would result] from her CLRA [and common law] claims' failure on the merits" not that there "there is an inherent limitation of the legal remedy that renders it inadequate." Accordingly, the Court grants Rebbl's motion, in part, and will grant Roffman leave to amend her allegations regarding the inadequacy of her legal remedies. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7EOSC at no extra charge.[CC] RHODE ISLAND: ACLA Expands Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- hipaajournal.com reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island (ACLU of RI) has amended its complaint against the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) and UnitedHealthcare New England (UHC) in their pending class action lawsuit over an August 2021 data breach. RIPTA is a state agency that operates the public bus service in Rhode Island. In August 2021, an unauthorized third party gained access to its computer systems and stole files that contained sensitive employee information, including names, Social Security numbers, and other personal and health data. RIPTA issued notifications to all affected individuals - approximately 22,000 - 4 months after the data breach; however, many individuals received notification letters who had no connection to RIPTA. It was later explained that the information of approximately 5,000 RIPTA employees was compromised, along with the data of 17,000 non-RIPTA employees. RIPTA held the data of 17,000 employees of other state agencies after the information was mistakenly sent to RIPTA by UHC. ACLU of RI filed a lawsuit against RIPTA and UHC over the data breach, which initially named two plaintiffs: a University of Rhode Island employee and a retired RIPTA employee, both of whom had been affected by the breach. The plaintiffs represented a class of more than 20,000 individuals. The lawsuit alleges RIPTA and UHC were negligent in failing to properly maintain, protect, purge, and safely destroy data, in violation of two Rhode Island laws. Further, the notification letters did not contain sufficient information about the breach, RIPTA falsely stated on its website that only beneficiaries of its health plan had been affected, and it took 138 days after the discovery of the breach to issue notifications, in violation of state law which requires data breach notifications to be issued within 45 days. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs and class members face an ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft, which requires them to continually monitor their financial accounts, future financial footprints, credit profiles, and identities. After the data breach, one of the plaintiffs experienced fraudulent use of her credit cards and unauthorized bank account withdrawals. The amended complaint adds a further eleven plaintiffs to the lawsuit as class representatives and details the harm that has been caused by the breach, which for some individuals includes losses of thousands of dollars. Some of the stolen data has also been discovered on the dark web. The amended complaint also includes details of the testimonies of RIPTA employees from a January 2022 hearing - which UHC representatives failed to attend - confirming encryption was not employed until after the data breach, and that the data breach also included Medicare ID numbers, providers' names and dates of service. Despite the data breach occurring more than 18 months ago, it is still unclear why UHC provided RIPTA with the data of non-RIPTA employees or why it took so long for notification letters to be issued. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, 10 years of credit monitoring services, and the courts to order the defendants to implement a comprehensive information security program. [GN] RICE DRILLING: Proceedings in Honey Crest Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HONEY CREST ACRES, LLC, v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03943-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings. The Court says, "The case is stayed pending the latter of (1) a decision on the pending summary judgment motions in TERA II, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-2221 and (2) a decision on the class certification motions pending in J&R Passmore, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-1587." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IlkYWo at no extra charge.[CC] RING LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Doorbell Security Flaws -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Harkavy of Commercial Dispute Resolution reports that Amazon-owned Ring faces accusations of wiretapping and breach of CIPA. A claimant in California has filed a class action against Ring, the video-doorbell manufacturer owned by Amazon, alleging that the company illicitly records and transcribes private conversations without consent, contravening wiretapping provisions enshrined in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). In the 8 February filing, Annette Cody claimed that the company is not only guilty of illegal wiretapping, but also permits third parties to eavesdrop on conversations: "Unlike most companies, defendant ignores CIPA. Instead, defendant both wiretaps the conversations of all website visitors and allows a third party to eavesdrop on the conversations in real time during transmission."[GN] SAKS INC: Court Dismisses Giordano Class Action ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN GIORDANO, ANGELENE HAYES, YING-LIANG WANG, and ANJA BEACHUM, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SAKS INCOPORATED, SAKS & COMPANY LLC, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, LOUIS VUITTON USA LLC, LORO PIANA & C. INC., GUCCI AMERICA, INC., PRADA USA CORP., and BRUNELLO CUCCINELLI USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00833-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Giordano complaint. The Court grants Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to file a second amended complaint as to Beachum. The Court notes that during the pendency of this motion there have been significant developments in the jurisprudence regarding no-poach and no-hire agreements, including the Supreme Court's decision in Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, which clarified that courts should limit their application of the per se and "quick look" standards to those restraints whose anticompetitive effect can be ascertained "in the twinkling of an eye." The Amended Complaint does not provide the Court with a sufficient basis to assess whether "the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon" by Plaintiffs are "a proper subject of relief." The Plaintiffs Susan Giordano, Angelene Hayes, Ying-Liang Wang, and Anja Beachum commenced the putative class action on February 14, 2020 and filed an Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020, against Saks, and against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Sherman Act. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Saks and the Brand Defendants have agreed not to compete for employees in the luxury retail industry by not hiring luxury retail employees ("LREs") who have worked at Saks within six months of such employment unless managers of both companies agree to an exception, resulting in depressed compensation for luxury retail employees and preventing the Plaintiffs from changing jobs, advancing their careers, and seeking better compensation in the industry. The Plaintiffs worked as skilled luxury retail employees at Saks. They received "extensive training on service, selling, and product-knowledge" and helped to maintain the image of the brand by creating "an atmosphere of exclusivity and opulence." Saks Incorporated operates as a holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lGNiKh at no extra charge.[CC] SALVATION ARMY: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE HENRIQUEZ, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:22-cv-10226-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order scheduling initial case management conference as follows: -- This action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- It appearing to the Court that no initial case management conference has yet taken place in this action, it is hereby ordred that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on March 14, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c). -- It is further ordered that counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. No later than one week (seven calendar days) prior to the conference, the parties shall file a Pre-Conference Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties. The Salvation Army is a Protestant church and an international charitable organization headquartered in London, England. The organisation reports a worldwide membership of over 1.7 million, comprising soldiers, officers and adherents collectively known as Salvationists. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOsSgC at no extra charge.[CC] SASKATCHEWAN: Long Process in Forced Sterilization Suit Discussed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Paradis at aptnnews.ca reports that the Indigenous lawyer who is lead counsel on a proposed class-action lawsuit for sterilization victims in Saskatchewan contacted APTN News after this story was published. Alisa Lombard said the lawsuit is moving forward in a regular manner, including being part of a recent case management meeting with a judge. Lombard said she is working on a website to help keep class members up to date. "The way that this actually works is you file a class action and then in a jurisdiction like Saskatchewan, it's not like that everywhere, but it is like that in Saskatchewan, it's opt out," she explained in a telephone interview. "So that means if you meet the definition of the class as described, then you are, like, de facto included." Lombard said class members do not have to contact lawyers or have all of their medical records to be part of the lawsuit. She also she is also developing ways to support the female class members. Lombard agreed the class-action process has taken a long time. She said she is also working on Bill S-250 at the Senate to criminalize the practice of coerced sterilization, which could be punishable by up to 14 years in prison. "The law only fixes a very narrow amount of things, if anything, really. And it doesn't extend to provide the healing that's required," she said. "Our instructions are clear: make sure this doesn't happen again, hold those responsible accountable, and then pursue compensation. We are trying to seek a measure of systemic change." An Anishinaabe woman, who says she was sterilized against her will following childbirth, is questioning a proposed class-action lawsuit meant to bring relief. "When I think about the whole situation . . . it feels pointless to me," said Luanna Robertson, 51, of Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba. Robertson joined the lawsuit that was proposed after a series of news stories on the practice of both forced and coerced sterilization of Indigenous women across Canada. The lead counsel was First Nations lawyer Alisa Lombard who was with Maurice Law Barristers & Solicitors. "In this putative class action the plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a practice of sterilizing Aboriginal women, by way of tubal ligation, without the women's proper or informed consent," said the statement of claim. "Citing proportionality, the health authority and physicians point out that the plaintiffs claim an award of at least $7 million for each member of the class. M.R.L.P. says in an affidavit that she believes that the potential class members number more than 40. "At the hearing of this application counsel indicated a current estimate of 50 members. If there are 50 members of the class, the plaintiffs are seeking an award of at least $350 million." Robertson told APTN News she signed on in 2020 at the Maurice Law office in Calgary. She said she underwent the procedure in a Saskatchewan hospital following the difficult birth of her daughter in 1997. "The doctor scared me and my husband, saying my baby was in medical distress," she told APTN. She alleged the doctors "butchered" her -- cutting, tying and cauterizing her fallopian tubes -- and said she was told it would all be reversible. "After my daughter was born there was smoke in the room and I asked, ‘What are you doing? What is that.' I could smell burning flesh." Angry about what happened, she went to see a lawyer to check into a lawsuit. "I couldn't find anyone to help me," she said. "I went through such a bad depression that lasted years and years." None of the allegations have been proven in court. Lombard testified before the Senate Committee on Human Rights in 2021 as lead council of the class-action lawsuit in Saskatchewan. The committee began a study in 2019 examining the history of eugenics - the belief that certain races or ethnicities were superior to others and that it was necessary to control their reproduction in order to maintain a desirable population - and forced and coerced sterilization. It said hospitals started sterilizing Indigenous women in Canada beginning in 1930s. Lombard told the committee the women "have been robbed of their sacred ability to carry life, give birth, to care for their child, to pass on their knowledge and culture." The Native Womens' Association of Canada (NWAC) put together an expert forum to collect research. It said two Canadian provinces - Alberta and British Columbia - passed sexual sterilization legislation. It estimated more than 1,145 Indigenous women were sterilized across Canada between 1966 and 1976. Lombard was recognized as one of Chatelaine's Women of the Year in 2018 for her work on the class action lawsuit, according to a blog post on the Maurice Law website in 2019. But Maurice Law told APTN it is no longer involved with the class-action. It referred APTN to Koskie Minsky LLP of Toronto. Its statement of claim said the focus is on Indigenous women in Alberta. "Koskie Minsky commenced a class action on behalf of all Indigenous women who underwent a sterilization procedure (tubal ligation) without proper or informed consent," it said in an email to APTN. [GN] SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: General Pretrial Management Order Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE TORO, v. SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00721-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- The above-referenced action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A). -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7Y2ay at no extra charge.[CC] SEARCH WIZARDS: Bid to Extend Time to Mediate Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH FAIRLEY, v. SEARCH WIZARDS, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01905-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order grant in part and denying in part motion to extend by almost three months the time within which to mediate and to extend by more than a month the time within which to move for conditional class certification. -- The request to extend the time within which to mediate is denied. -- The parties must mediate as soon as possible and no later than February 22, 2023. -- The request to extend the time within which to move for conditional class certification is granted-in-part. No later than March 31, 2023, the plaintiff may move for conditional class certification. Search Wizards provides consulting services. The Company offers recruiting staff augmentation, talent solutions, consultants, and managed services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XDryfv at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks Protective Order Staying All Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter a protective order staying all discovery unless and until a class is conditionally certified and quashing that discovery which is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Counsel for Select conferred by telephone with Counsel for Plaintiffs, Ben Williams, on Friday, January 27, 2023, as to whether they would oppose Select's cross-motion. The Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Williams did not commit one way or the other whether Plaintiffs opposed the cross motion, and stated that he would follow up with an answer, but as of the timing of this filing, Select's counsel has not received a response. In fact, the Plaintiffs' own authority makes clear that even where, unlike here, the movant bears no responsibility for discovery not being served, courts should be loath to find that objections to discovery have been waived. By contrast, cases relied on by the Plaintiffs that did find a waiver are inapplicable as they concern a disregard by the non-movant of its own promise to produce by a certain date or a court order so ruling or where the non-movant offered no reason for its failure to respond by a discovery deadline. Select submits the following Amended motion for a Protective Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), to stay discovery until the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is ruled upon and otherwise striking overbroad and disproportionate discovery. The Plaintiffs seek discovery of nearly every document concerning the work of more than 17,000 employees performing eight distinct positions at more than 2300 facilities in 42 states. The discovery Plaintiffs seek is premature and therefore improper because Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification has not been granted. Because it is overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome, under no circumstances should Plaintiffs' company-wide fishing expedition stand. Therefore, Select is entitled to a protective order to stay discovery until the motion to conditionally certify is decided should be granted. Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive physical, occupational and speech therapy services to patients. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YRCY0c at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leonard V. Feigel, Esq. John A. Tucker, Esq. David B. Goroff, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017 Telephone: (904) 359-2000 Facsimile: (904) 359-8700 E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com jtucker@foley.com dgoroff@foley.com - and - Diane G. Walker, Esq. Kristen W. Roberts, Esq. WALKER MORTON LLP Two Prudential Plaza, 180 North Stetson Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 471-2900 Facsimile: (312) 471-6001 E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com kroberts@walkermortonllp.com SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks Stay on Conditional Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Select requests an order staying any ruling on the Conditional Certification Motion until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that adds Select PT OT & SLP Rehabilitation NY PLLC as a party. Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive physical, occupational and speech therapy services A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jVmMMx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leonard V. Feigel, Esq. John A. Tucker, Esq. David B. Goroff FOLEY & LARDNER LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017 Telephone: (904) 359-2000 Facsimile: (904) 359-8700 E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com jtucker@foley.com dgoroff@foley.com - and - Diane G. Walker, Esq. Kristen W. Roberts, Esq. WALKER MORTON LLP Two Prudential Plaza, 180 North Stetson Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 471-2900 Facsimile: (312) 471-6001 E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com kroberts@walkermortonllp.com SHELL LAKE: Coetzee Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY COETZEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHELL LAKE HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC and PREMIER HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT OF SHELL LAKE LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00337-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order: 1) Plaintiff's motion to certify the class and defendants' request to file a sur-reply are dismissed as moot. 2) The parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement is granted. 3) The court certifies the following Rule 23 classes for settlement purposes: "All persons who have been or are currently employed by Shell Lake Health Care Center LLC and/or Premier Healthcare Management of Shell Lake LLC in the Shell Lake, Wisconsin facility and who were not permitted to leave the premises for unpaid meal breaks and therefore denied regular and/or overtime wages at any time between March 1, 2020 and August 28, 2021." 4) The court certifies the following FLSA collectives for settlement purposes: "All persons who have been or are currently employed by Shell Lake Health Care Center LLC and/or Premier Healthcare Management of Shell Lake LLC in the Shell Lake, Wisconsin facility who were not permitted to leave the premises for unpaid meal breaks and therefore denied overtime wages at any time between March 1, 2020 and August 28, 2021." 5) This case is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of discovery and sending notice to the putative plaintiffs as defined above. 6) The Plaintiff Courtney Coetzee is appointed class representative and Hawks Quindel, S.C. is appointed as class counsel. 7) The proposed notice to the Settlement Agreement is approved and class counsel is authorized to distribute it as provided in the parties' submissions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YRXr56 at no extra charge.[CC] SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Statistica Suit Over FTX Customer Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- Felix Ng of Cointelegraph reports that last week on February 6, 2023, algorithmic trading firm Statistica Capital filed a putative class-action lawsuit against New York-based Signature Bank, alleging it had "actual knowledge of and substantially facilitated the now-infamous FTX fraud. " SBF and FTX fraud 'aided and abetted' by Silvergate Bank, alleges lawsuit. The filing is the latest proposed class action in a string of lawsuits aimed at Silvergate over the last two months about its links with Sam Bankman-Fried and defunct crypto exchange FTX. Silvergate Bank and its CEO Alan Lane have been accused of "aiding and abetting" a "multibillion-dollar fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF)" and two of his entities, FTX and Alameda Research, in a newly proposed class-action lawsuit. The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 14 by lawyers representing a San Francisco-based FTX user who was frozen out of around $20,000 in crypto when the exchange collapsed last year. Plaintiff Soham Bhatia alleges that Silvergate Bank, its parent company Silvergate Capital Corporation and CEO Alan Lane were aware of the use of FTX customer funds by Alameda Research and has accused them of concealing "the true nature of FTX" from its customers. "At all relevant times, Silvergate, Bankman-Fried and Lane were each co-conspirators of the other," according to the lawsuit, adding: Silvergate $SI is now the most shorted stock (73% of float) Yep the bank who according to the class-action lawsuit directly "aided and abetted FTX's fraud". The lawsuit alleges Silvergate and Lane aided, abetted, encouraged and substantially assisted Bankman-Fried in jointly perpetrating a fraudulent scheme upon Plaintiff and the class. The suit seeks a combination of damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits with the amount to be determined in trial. However, the lawsuit is yet to be certified by the district court, which is a necessary step before it can proceed as a class action. The latest proposed lawsuit is just another class-action complaint against Silvergate over the last two months. On December 14, 2022, plaintiff Joewy Gonzalez filed a similar class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California — accusing Silvergate of its alleged role in "furthering FTX's investment fraud" by aiding and abetting the crypto exchange when it placed FTX user deposits into the bank accounts of Alameda. On January 10, 2023, a class-action suit was filed against Silvergate Capital Corporation in the United States District Court of Southern California alleging that Silvergate's platform failed to detect occurrences of money laundering "in amounts exceeding $425 million" involving South American money launderers. "In particular, Signature knew of and permitted the commingling of FTX customer funds within its proprietary, blockchain-based payments network, Signet," it wrote. Cointelegraph has reached out to Silvergate for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication. [GN] SMART OILFIELD: Guthrie Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER GUTHRIE and SHANE NORTH, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SMART OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00485-PRW (W.D. Okla), the plaintiffs file a motion for conditional certification and notice to class members. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current employees of the Defendant to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs ask this Court to conditionally certify the following collective: "All salaried Pump Supervisors since June 14, 2019." The Plaintiffs also request that the Court grant counsel a period of 90 days -- beginning on the date on which Defendant fully and completely releases the potential class members' contact information to Plaintiff's counsel -- during which to distribute the Notice and file opt-in Plaintiff's Consent forms with the Court. Smart Oilfield is a company that operates in the Oil & Energy industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YRWc5W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: LWD Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00995-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court further ordered that: -- the accompanying Opinion shall be placed under seal and shall remain under seal, unless and until an order unsealing the Opinion is issued; -- to the extent that the parties intend to seal portions of the Opinion, a joint motion to seal shall be filed within 14 days after the entry of this Order, where such joint motion shall include as an attachment the Opinion marked with proposed redactions; and -- the parties' failure to comply with the Order above will result in the Opinion being unsealed in its entirety. The Louisiana case is consolidated in Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ef5W23 at no extra charge.[CC] SOMNIA INC: Court Appoints Garber as Class Counsel in Chabak ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CHABAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOMNIA, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-09341-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order appointing Todd S. Garber of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, and Jason Lichtman of Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2). On January 25, 2023, the Court held a pre-motion conference to discuss the pending request to consolidate and the requests for appointment of interim lead counsel. Somnia is a Hospital & Health Care, Hospitals & Clinics, and Hospital Anesthesia Services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YuZtbn at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Order on Class Cert Discovery, Briefing Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN and SAMANTHA ROOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order regarding supplemental discovery and briefing related to class certification as follows: 1. Within 21 days after January 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs must file any opposition to Southwest's motion to exclude the expert report of Christopher Bennett. 2. Within 60 days after January 24, 2023, the parties must complete the outstanding discovery discussed during the January 24 conference, consistent with the Court's pronouncements at the January 24 conference regarding that discovery. 3. Within 81 days after January 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs must file: a. any reply in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which must not exceed 25 pages (excluding caption page, tables, supporting declarations and exhibits); b. any rebuttal report to the expert report of Darin Lee; and c. any motion to exclude the expert report of Darin Lee; 4. Within 103 days after January 24, 2023, Southwest must file any opposition to any motion to exclude the expert report of Darin Lee (page limits per local rule, except to exclude caption page, tables, supporting declarations and exhibits). On January 24, 2023, the Parties appeared at a status conference through their respective counsel and presented argument regarding supplemental discovery and briefing related to Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification. Southwest Airlines engages in the operation and management of a passenger airline. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E6qRV4 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Equifax Bid to Stay Proceedings in Fluker OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fluker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01207-JES-JEH (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Patricia T. Morris entered an order granting Equifax's "Motion to Stay Proceedings as to Equifax Pending Prior Class Action." The Defendant should immediately inform the Court whenever the determination of the certification of the prior Pending Class Action is made, the Court says. The Plaintiff has not responded to the present motion and based on the current record, the Court concludes that he would not be prejudiced by the proposed stay. The case was filed approximately four months ago and discovery has not begun. If the pending class action is certified, Plaintiff, as a class member would be able to obtain the same recovery he would have if the stay were not granted in the case. Because all four of the factors to be considered support staying the claims against Equifax, the motion will be granted, the Court adds. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ima9U3 at no extra charge.[CC] STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILAFALAM PRICE and ELEK DAVIDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05083-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as follows: Event Current Amended Deadline Deadline Fact Discovery Completed Mar. 31, 2023 Jun. 29, 2023 Plaintiff's identification Apr. 21, 2023 Jul. 20, 2023 of experts and disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) Defendant's identification May 26, 2023 Aug. 24, 2023 of experts and disclosure of expert testimony Service of Motion for Class Apr. 21, 2023 Jul. 20, 2023 Certification Service of Opposition to May 26, 2023 Aug. 24, 2023 Motion for Class Certification Service of Reply Brief in Jun. 16, 2023 Sep. 14, 2023 Support Motion for Class Certification Sterling Infosystems provides human resource services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kc0wJ6 at no extra charge.[CC] SUMO LOGIC: M&A Continues Investigation of San Francisco Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Sumo Logic, Inc. (NASDAQ: SUMO), relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of Francisco Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, SUMO shareholders are expected to receive $12.05 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/sumo-logic-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341 [GN] SYNGENTA CROP: Jones Planting Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- JONES PLANTING CO. III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-147 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 14, 2023) is a class action based on Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to impede competitors and artificially inflate the prices that U.S. farmers pay for pesticides, in violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants deploy a set of so-called "loyalty programs," which are designed to severely limit the availability of lower-priced generic products. Through this scheme, the Defendants have suppressed generic competition and maintained monopolies long after their lawful exclusive rights to market particular chemicals have expired. These unlawful business practices cost farmers many millions of dollars a year, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Defendants have maintained supracompetitive prices for crop protection products by denying farmers access to less expensive generic products and shielding their own products from price competition. The Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the form of overcharges they paid for crop protection products, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Jones Planting Co. III, a Mississippi company purchased crop protection products manufactured by Defendants during the Class period. Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a for-profit company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland and is organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Mullins, Esq. L. Cooper Harrell, Esq. TURNING POINT LITIGATION MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC 300 North Greene Street, Suite 2000 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 645-3320 Facsimile: (336) 645-3330 E-mail: amullins@turningpointlit.com charrell@turningpointlit.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. Johnny M. Shaw, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT, LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com jshaw@dicellolevitt.com - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Jonathan P. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW, PLLC 121 Colony Crossing, Suite D Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 790-1505 E-mail: jpb@barrettlawms.com TAMKO BUILDING: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, and SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Parties file a joint motion to extend deadlines to depose rebuttal experts, for filing motion to certify class, for filing daubert motions and for a briefing schedule: Current Proposed New Deadline/Date Deadline/Date Deadline to Depose Jan. 30, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023 Rebuttal Experts Motion for Class Feb. 28, 2023 Mar. 31, 2023 Certification Opposition to Class N/A May 15, 2023 Certification and Filing of Daubert Motions Reply on Class N/A Jun. 22, 2023 Certification and Oppositions to Daubert Motions Replies on Daubert N/A Jul. 13, 2023 Motions The parties also are in the process of meeting and conferring in connection with a possible motion to strike portions of one of Plaintiffs' experts' rebuttal reports. TAMKO Building is an independent manufacturer of residential roofing shingles. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yt28Cx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-5816 Facsimile: (215) 875-4606 E-mail: jpolakoff@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net - and- Andrew W. Funk, Esq. FUNK RIEMANN LLP 1600 Genessee St., Suite 860 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 348-3002 Facsimile: (816) 895-6351 E-mail: andrew@frlawkc.com - and- Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN , LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kara T. Stubbs, Esq. BAKER S TERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC 2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 471-2121 Facsimile: (816) 472-0288 E-mail: stubbs@bakersterchi.com - and- Jessica D. Miller, Esq. Richard T. Bernardo, Esq. Thomas E. Fox, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-2111 Telephone: (202) 371-7850 Facsimile: (202) 661-0525 E-mail:jessica.miller@skadden.com richard.bernardo@skadden.com thomas.fox@skadden.com TERRAN ORBITAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Squitieri & Fearon LLP and Moore Kuehn PLLC disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to represent stockholders of Terran Orbital Inc., ("Terran") (NYSE: LLAP) who purchased their stock before March 28, 2022 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Jeffrey Mullen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Terran Orbital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01394. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Terran stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Terran class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Terran class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Terran class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Terran class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Terran class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 17, 2023. If you wish to discuss the Terran class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon LLP at (212) 421-6492 or via e-mail at lee@sfclasslaw.com or Fletcher Moore of Moore Kuehn PLLC at (212) 709-8245 or via e-mail at fmoore@moorekuehn.com The Terran class action lawsuit charges Terran and certain of its officers with violations of securities laws. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, class members through their employment with Legacy TOC and who were induced to vote in favor of the merger via a materially false and misleading Proxy Prospectus but later were restricted from, or otherwise unable to, sell or dispose of their post-merger Terran Orbital ("New TOC") common stock because of the misfeasance and/or malfeasance of the Defendants named herein. The New TOC stock was itself issued in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 because it was issued from a materially false and misleading S-4 Registration Statement and Prospectus ("S-4"). Defendants' failure to timely provide Plaintiff and class members with New TOC stock which was freely tradeable on the "Effective Date" as defined in the Merger Agreement also breached a contract formed between non-insider Legacy TOC common stockholders and Legacy TOC and New TOC. Squitieri & Fearon, LLP is one of the Nation's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. Squitieri & Fearon has been recognized by courts throughout the country for its high-quality and professional experience handling complex lawsuits, particularly in the fields of securities, ERISA, wage and hour, mass torts, shareholder derivative actions and antitrust claims. Squitieri & Fearon attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.sfclasslaw.comfor more information. Moore Kuehn is a New York City law firm with attorneys representing investors and consumers in litigation involving class actions, securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, and other claims. For additional information about Moore Kuehn, please visit http://www.moorekuehn.com/practice/new-york-securities-litigation/. [GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: HAPPF Bid to Seal Documents Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT AND PENSION FUNDS LTD., v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marston entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff's proposed redactions are limited in scope. The Plaintiff has only sought discrete redactions of certain sensitive information from these documents, rather than requesting the documents be sealed in their entirety. The Lead Plaintiff Gerald Forsythe brings this action on behalf of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015, and August 18, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that during this time, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the commercial success and profitability of one of Teva's drug products, Copaxone. Teva Pharmaceutical an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company that specializes primarily in generic drugs. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YuBE3p at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS CAPITAL: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCBI) resulting from allegations that Texas Capital may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Texas Capital securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2747 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March, 29, 2021, shares of Texas Capital stock dropped 13% on unusually heavy trading volume as prime brokers associated with now-defunct family office, Archegos Capital Management, unwound large U.S. stock positions linked to the fund. A Bloomberg article published on November 16, 2021 detailed how Archegos built up a previously undisclosed position equal to 20% of Texas Capital prior to the margin calls that forced Archegos' liquidation. According to the article, Texas Capital was aware of the large position held by Archegos while it raised additional capital from investors in February 2021. 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] TIERNO CARE: Castro Seeks to Certify Class of Home Health Aides --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH MELANIE CASTRO Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TIERNO CARE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. D/B/A TIERNO CARE AGENCY, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00282-FYP (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certify the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(30), which consists of: "All Home Health Aides employed by either Tierno Care Home Health Agency or J & S Health Care, LLC that worked more than 40 hours (regardless of whether those hours were paid by Tierno, J&S, or Professional Healthcare Resources in any workweek during the Relevant Period;" 2. appointing Ruth Melanie Castro as the Class Representative for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3. appointing her counsel as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); 4. approving the three-step trial plan outlined in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and 5. providing for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Tierno Care is a home health agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XtYlTW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. Edith K. Thomas, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com TRAEGER PELLET: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the defendant filed a motion for leave to file under seal. The Defendant also requests that the Court grant leave to file under seal all references to the Exhibits in the amended motion. Pursuant to DUCivR 5-3, the records of the court are presumptively open to the public, but a judge may, upon a showing of good cause, order that documents be sealed. Traeger requests that the Exhibits and references thereto be sealed to protect information that has been designated "Confidential" and/or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" by the parties pursuant to this Court's Standard Protective Order. Traeger so designated these documents due to the presence of highly sensitive and proprietary business and technical information, which includes Pellet ingredients and formulas, personal employee information, raw data from internal surveys (which include private information for several of Traeger's customers), and pricing and sales data (and deposition and expert testimony regarding the same). Traeger is a manufacturer of wood pellet grills for outdoor cooking. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KcgEua at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julianne P. Blanch, Esq. Juliette P. White, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2218 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 E-mail: JBlanch@parsonsbehle.com JWhite@parsonsbehle.com - and - James F. Speyer, Esq. E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Seeks to File Information Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file their Amended Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support, as well as several of the motion's accompanying exhibits under seal. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file information under seal because the materials contain or reference documents that were either previously designated by the Defendant as confidential or AEO (per the protective order), or because the documents and materials contain personal and/or financial information of the Plaintiffs or other individuals. Traeger Pellet is a market leader in the billion-dollar barbeque grill industry, selling both grills and Wood Pellets used to cook and add flavor to grilled foods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Rl4wl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jacob W. Nelson, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, #600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com jnelson@aklawfirm.com - and - Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq. Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq. Liana W. Chen, Esq. KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 955-1155 E-mail: karl@kr.law jeff@kr.law liana@kr.law TRAEGER PELLET: Yates, et al., File Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Utah and California Classes. 1. certifying the proposed Utah Class and California Class (or alternatively use its authority to "cure" any issues); and 2. appointing them as the class representatives and their counsel as Class counsel. The Plaintiff Norman Jones brings his claims on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Utah Class (also called "Subclass"), as follows: "All persons who purchased Wood Pellets from any retail outlet in the State of Utah after October 1, 2015, including, but not limited to, persons who purchased directly from Defendant or other Utah-based retailers online, or who resided in Utah at the time they made online purchases of Wood Pellets after October 1, 2015." Excluded from the Utah Subclass are the Defendant, its officers and directors at all relevant times, members of Defendant's immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendant has or had a controlling interest. The Plaintiff Michael Yates also brings his claims on his own behalf, and on behalf of the California Class (also called "Subclass") as follows: "All persons who purchased Wood Pellets from any retail outlet in the State of California after October 1, 2015, including, but not limited to, persons who do not reside in California but purchased Wood Pellets from a California-based retailer online, or who resided in California at the time they made online purchases of Wood Pellets after October 1, 2015." Excluded from the California Subclass are the Defendant, its officers and directors at all relevant times, members of Defendant's immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Under Rule 23(c)(2), for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court "must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." The Plaintiffs have communicated with multiple firms that specialize in designing and implementing large-scale notification plans; based upon , they have proposed a notice program that will provide efficient, adequate, and reasonable notice of certification to 53 Class Members to fully comport with Rule 23(c)(2). The Defendant features terms on its product packaging because , but the Defendant's labels are a lie. For example, Defendant sells millions of barbeque wood pellets ("Wood Pellets") by headlining that they are "MESQUITE -- 100% PURE HARDWOOD PELLETS --Premium." The Defendant's misrepresentations violate Utah and California consumer protection statutes, and individual lawsuits would be impracticable due to the large number of affected consumers in these states and small amount at issue for individual consumers. Plaintiffs' experts have outlined common relief to a reasonable certainty, and the test for consumers' reliance on the false claims is objective. Thus, the Court should certify this case as a class action under Rule 23. The "Pellets at Issue" in this case are Defendant's top-selling "Mesquite" and "Hickory" Wood Pellets used by grillers. For instance, Defendant sells "Mesquite" Wood Pellets with label headlines stating "MESQUITE—100%. Traeger Pellet is a market leader in the billion-dollar barbeque grill industry, selling both grills and Wood Pellets used to cook and add flavor to grilled foods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RXJArA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jacob W. Nelson, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, #600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com jnelson@aklawfirm.com - and - Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq. Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq. Liana W. Chen, Esq. KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 955-1155 E-mail: karl@kr.law jeff@kr.law liana@kr.law TRAIL TAVERN: Approval of Conditional Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELL CRAGHEAD, for herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAIL TAVERN OF YELLOW SPRINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00308-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Parties move the Court by way of stipulation to conditionally certify, and to authorize the publication of notice to, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective class. The Plaintiff filed this action on October 28, 2022, alleging that Defendants failed to pay her, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and failed to include non-discretionary bonus payments in their regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating an overtime premium rate. Count One of the Complaint seeks relief under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. The Plaintiff pursues her FLSA claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees as a representative action under the FLSA's opt-in provision, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Specifically, the Parties stipulate to and seek an order from this Court for the purpose of conditional certification only: (a) Conditionally certifying an FLSA collective class defined as: "All current and former employees of Defendants' who were paid on an hourly basis and worked more than 40 hours in any workweek between October 28, 2019 1 and [the date this Court approves the Parties' joint Stipulation]. (b) Approving the form and substance of the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit ("Notice") to be provided to the collective class, as well as the Consent to Join. (c) Appointing Attorneys Greg R. Mansell, Carrie J. Dyer, and Rhiannon M. Herbert of Mansell Law LLC as class counsel for the conditionally certified collective class ("Class Counsel"). A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lCoGCo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 610-9899 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com The Defendants are represented by: Randall M. Comer, Esq. Shannon L. Wahl, Esq. Benjamin D. Noll, Esq. MARTIN, BROWNE, HULL & HARPER, PLL 500 N. Fountain Ave. Springfield, OH 45501 Telephone: (937) 324-5541 Facsimile: (937) 325-5432 E-mail: rcomer@martinbrowne.com swahl@martinbrowne.com bnoll@martinbrowne.com TRANS UNION: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to May 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John E.K. Pratter entered an order on the joint stipulation and proposed order regarding class certification briefing as follows: 1. The Plaintiff must disclose any opinion March 17, 2023 witnesses he will rely on part of his Rule 23 motion by: 2. Trans Union must disclose any rebuttal May 1, 2023 class-certification opinion witnesses by: 3. All depositions of disclosed class March 17, 2023 certification opinion witnesses must be completed by: 4. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 24, 2023 his motion for class certification is extended to: 5. Trans Union's response to the May 24, 2023 Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is extended to: 6. The Plaintiff's reply in July 21, 2023 support of class certification is due by: TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ea0GNf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735 8600 Facsimile: (215) 940 0800 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Tammy Hussin, Esq. HUSSIN LAW FIRM 1596 N. Coast Hwy 101 Encitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (877) 677 5397 Facsimile: (877) 677 1547 E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael O'Neil, Esq. Albert E., Hartmann, Esq. Kristen A. DeGrande, Esq. 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207 1000 E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com ahartmann@reedsmith.com kdegrande@reedsmith.com - and - Joshua M. Peles, Esq. Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 851 8100 E-mail: jpeles@reedsmith.com TRANS UNION: Equifax Bid to Stay Proceedings in Fluker OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO LYNN FLUKER JR., v. Trans Union, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-12240-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Patricia T. Morris entered an order granting the Defendant Equifax's motion to stay proceedings as to Equifax. The Defendant should immediately inform the Court whenever the determination of the certification of the prior Pending Class Action is made. The Plaintiff has not responded to the present motion and based on the current record, the Court concludes that he would not be prejudiced by the proposed stay. This case was filed approximately four months ago and discovery has not begun. If the pending class action is certified, Plaintiff, as a class member would be able to obtain the same recovery he would have if the stay were not granted in this case. Because all four of the factors to be considered support staying the claims against Equifax, the motion will be granted. Antonio Fluker, proceeding pro se, alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Complaint contains the following allegations as to Equifax. On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff applied for a loan with a non-defendant credit union. When the credit union did a credit check, Equifax, a consumer reporting agency ("CRA"), erroneously reported that Plaintiff had a credit score "25 or more points" lower than his "actual score" due to a "computer glitch." As a result of Equifax's negligent and willful failure "to follow reasonable procedures," the credit union denied the application for a loan. Equifax was aware that the failure to accurately report his credit score would hamper his ability to obtain credit, the lawsuit says. TransUnion is a risk and information solutions provider to individuals, government, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0wnfH at no extra charge.[CC] TRENDLY INC: Boss Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA BOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRENDLY, INC. d/b/a REBAG, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00246 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a clothing and apparel retailer. To promote its services, Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers, including Plaintiff, in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Woldanski Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PATRICK WOLDANSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC.; CHENG LU; PATRICK DILLON; ERIC TAPIA; XIAODI HOU; MO CHEN; JAMES MULLEN; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.; PIPER SANDLER & CO.; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; and VALUABLE CAPITAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09625-AKH, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego, on Feb. 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00282-RSH-DEB to the proceeding. The complaint is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons who: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with TuSimple's April 15, 2021 initial public offering; and/or (b) that purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple securities between April 15, 2021 and October 31, 2022, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933. TuSimple Holdings, Inc. is an American autonomous trucking company, based in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 The Defendants are represented by: Robert K. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT K SMITH 1150 Foothill Boulevard, Suite L La Canada, CA 91011-3271 Telephone: (818) 949-0100 Facsimile: (818) 949-0104 - and - Timothy Perla, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6696 - and - William Paine, Esq. 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6134 TWIN CITY FIRE: Martin Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael Martin filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Order dated Jan. 11, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL MARTIN and KAREN MARTIN, d/b/a MARTIN'S OF SEWICKLEY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWIN CITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2-21-cv-01355, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This is a civil class action filed on October 11, 2021 for declaratory relief and breach of contract arising from Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a business that closed or significantly limited its operations after the governor of Pennsylvania issued an executive order to curb the spread of the coronavirus and the disease it causes, COVID-19. The Plaintiff filed claims under its commercial property insurance policy to recover losses it suffered because of the executive order. The Defendant universally denied coverage, arguing that the business did not suffer a "physical loss of or damage to" property necessary to trigger coverage or that a "virus exclusion" applied and barred coverage, says the suit. On January 11, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim which the Court granted on January 11, 2023 through a Memorandum Order signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. The appellate case is captioned as MICHAEL MARTIN v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 23-1261, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Feb. 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL MARTIN and KAREN MARTIN, d/b/a MARTIN'S OF SEWICKLEY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by" Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendant-Appellee TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO. is represented by: Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG 1818 Market Street, Suite 2740 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 405-9191 UMG RECORDINGS: Waite Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs John Waite, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion dated January 27, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHN WAITE, an individual, et al. v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff, in this complaint, seeks to recover actual damages and/or statutory damages and obtain injunctive relief to prevent further wrongful conduct by Defendants. According to the complaint, since the first Copyright Act was enacted in 1790, that Act and the several successive copyright statutes have always had a feature which allows a second chance for authors (or their heirs) to reclaim copyrights from unwise grants made by authors early on in their careers, close to the creation of the works. While the particular features of those laws, and the length of the terms and statutory scheme of the terminations involved, have changed and evolved, the strong "second chance" concept has remained. In fact, the very first act, the Copyright Act of 1790, borrowed that concept from the English Statute of Anne, enacted in 1709, the first copyright law. The theme continued in the Copyright Acts of 1831, 1870, and 1909. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order on January 27, 2023 denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in all respects. The Court held that, "The Plaintiffs claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extend beyond their own grievances. However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudications on an aggregate basis." The appellate case is captioned Waite v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Case No. 23-195, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Feb. 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants John Waite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Roy W. Arnold, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 932-2814 Defendant-Appellee UMG Recordings, Inc., DBA Universal Music Group, is represented by: Ariel Atlas, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5477 UNITED STATES: Carr Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CARR, BRENDA MOORE, MARY ELLEN WILSON, MARY SHAW, and CAROL KATZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. XAVIER BECERRA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 3:22-cv-00988-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. "All individuals who were enrolled in Medicaid in any state on March 18, 2020 or later and, as a result of the adoption of the IFR on November 6, 2020, either had their Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of benefits and were determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings program or will have their Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of benefits and be determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings Program prior to a redetermination conducted after March 31, 2023." The Defendant is ordered to refrain from enforcing the IFR with respect to the members of certified class through the close of business on March 31, 2023, and to reinstate its previous guidance with respect to these individuals. In light of the CAA, which provides, an end date (March 31, 2023) for section 6008(b)(3) of the FFCRA, the above injunction will expire at the close of business Eastern Time on March 31, 2023. The Defendant subsequently revised its argument, contending that these factors weigh in its favor because of the impact of the CAA. Under the CAA, section 6008(b)(3) -- and the challenged provisions of the IFR implementing it -- ends March 31, 2023, and there is thus no need to enjoin the operation of these provisions after that date. As of April 1, 2023, states may begin the process of "unwinding," that is, redetermining the eligibility of all Medicaid beneficiaries and terminating those individuals who are no longer eligible. On November 6, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued an Interim Final Rule ("IFR") changing its interpretation of Section 6008(b)(3) of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("FFCRA"), a provision governing Medicaid benefits. The named Plaintiffs, five Medicaid recipients, allege they experienced a reduction in their medical benefits as a result of the IFR and filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services, alleging that the IFR violates procedural and substantive provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. On November 7, 2022, U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendant to "refrain from enforcing the IFR with respect to the named plaintiffs for the pendency of this action, and to reinstate its previous guidance with respect to the named plaintiffs," and "to inform the relevant state agencies of this revised position with respect to the named plaintiffs." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/410cVWC at no extra charge.[CC] UNTUCKIT LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Recorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges apparel company UNTUCKit has unlawfully recorded calls to its customer service number without notice or consent. According to the 14-page lawsuit, the men's shirt retailer has run afoul of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which prohibits businesses from recording telephone communications in the state without first notifying consumers and obtaining consent. The suit relays that, in direct violation of the CIPA, UNTUCKit neither disclosed to the plaintiff at the beginning of the calls that her communications would be recorded nor sought her consent to do so. Per the case, the plaintiff, a California resident, called UNTUCKit's customer service number on November 16, 2022 and made a purchase with a representative. The woman reportedly called again on November 22 to inform the representative that the wrong items had been shipped, the complaint says. During both calls, the defendant used call-recording software to "intentionally and surreptitiously" record the communications while the plaintiff remained "entirely unaware," the filing claims. Importantly, during her calls with the customer service line, the plaintiff purportedly shared private information with the UNTUCKit representative, including her credit card details and email address, the lawsuit explains. "At no point during these inbound telephone communications was Plaintiff ever informed that her communications were being recorded," the suit reads. As the case tells it, the woman reasonably expected her calls to UNTUCKit's customer service to remain private because she was not warned about any recording or asked to give consent. The plaintiff says it is "highly offensive" that recording allegedly took place without her knowledge, as it would be to other consumers, the complaint claims. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, since February 16, 2022, called UNTUCKit's customer service number from a cellphone while in California, spoke with a representative, and was recorded by the defendant without notification at the beginning of the call. [GN] USA TODAY: Mathews Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH (LIZ) MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. USA TODAY SPORTS MEDIA GROUP, LLC and GANNETT CO., INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01407-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons who are working or have performed work for USA Today in the United States as a Site Editor at any time since December 8, 2019 (collectively "Site Managers" or the "FLSA Class"); 2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class within 10 days of the date of Order; 3. permitting her to issue notice to all potential members of the FLSA Class by first-class mail and email, informing them of their right to opt in to this case; 4. approving an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the date of Plaintiff's first issuance of notice; 5. allowing the Plaintiff to send reminder notices by first- class mail and email to all potential members of the FLSA Class who have not yet responded to notice within 45 days of the first issuance of notice; and 6. approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and the Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form, to be included in the issuance of notice; On January 13, 2023, the Plaintiff's counsel asked the Defendant's counsel whether Defendant would stipulate to the relief sought in the Motion. On January 18, 2023, the Defendant, through counsel, declined to stipulate to the relief sought in the Motion. USA Today is an Online Media, Publishing, and Sports company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S4kVBE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com USAA GENERAL Case Schedule Deadlines in Drozdz Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGATA DROZDZ, an individual and TEAKRE VEST, an individual, v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01010-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order granting stipulated motion to stay case scheduled deadlines. The Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action in King County Superior Court on March 5, 2020. The Defendants removed the case to the Court on June 29, 2020. Over the past two and a half years, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery, including the production and review of thousands of pages of documents and millions of rows of data and the taking of several depositions. The process has allowed the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of claims and defenses. The parties have agreed to engage in settlement talks to see whether this case can be resolved without further litigation. The Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is currently due on February 10, 2023. The parties agree that it would be better to focus their time and energy on 10 talks rather than the work necessary to brief issues of class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S4FEFj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Young-Ji Ham, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 312-3057 E-mail: youngji@washinjurylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jay Williams, Esq. Paula M. Ketcham, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5629 Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 E-mail: jay.williams@afslaw.com paula.ketcham@afslaw.com - and - Michael A. Moore, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154-1051 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm of BusinessWire reports that bids for Lead Plaintiff appointment will be due on April 17, 2023 in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of VBit Technologies Corp., VBit Mining LLC (Collectively, "VBit") securities, which were unregistered in the form of investment contracts between January 1, 2019 and February 13, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you purchased VBit securities, which were in the form of investment contracts, 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. To join the VBit class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12202 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 April 17, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. 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. According to the lawsuit, defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements and omitting material information concerning VBit's mining operations. The lawsuit also alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act by offering, selling and soliciting unregistered securities. To join the VBit class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12202 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. Contacts 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 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. More NewsRSS feed for The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Contacts 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] VITAMIN COTTAGE: More Time to File Replies Sought in Levine ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties request an extension of time to file replies in support of certain motions. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for the Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Natural Grocers who joins in this motion. On December 2, 2022, the Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify. See Dkt. 220. The Plaintiff filed his response on January 13, 2023. The Defendant's reply is due Friday, February 3, 2023. On December 9, 2022, the Defendant filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff filed his response on January 13, 2023. The Defendant's reply is due Friday, February 3, 2023. On December 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Omnibus Motion and Memorandum of Law for Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant filed its response on January 13, 2023. The Plaintiff's reply is due Friday, February 3, 2023. The Defendant filed a response on January 13, 2023. Plaintiff's reply is due Friday, February 3, 2023. The Parties are working diligently to prepare the replies in support of their respective motions, but due to the breadth of the issues and in light of the materials and arguments the Plaintiff requires a modest amount of additional time to file his replies. Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ixugis at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19003 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven M. Gutierrez, Esq. Austin W. Jensen, Esq. Jeremy B. Merkelson, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 E-mail: SGutierrez@hollandhart.com AWJensen@hollandhart.com jbmerkelson@hollandhart.com WELCH FOODS: Faces Flynn Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks ---------------------------------------------------------- RYAN FLYNN and PAULA LYCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE and PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01260 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023) arises from the conduct of Welch in falsely labeling its fruit snack products, which it deems "America's favorite fruit snacks," as containing "No Preservatives", even though they contain two preservatives like citric and lactic acid in violation of New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase the products, breached express warranties about the products, and have been unjustly enriched as a result of their deceptive labeling scheme. Through this false and deceptive advertising, the Defendants have misled Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers into buying the products at stores across New York based on Defendants' materially false claim that the products contain "No Preservatives." The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury in fact caused by this market distortion, and seek injunctive relief, including without limitation public injunctive relief, as well as, inter alia, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. Welch Foods Inc. produces and markets grape products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Timothy K. Giordano, Esq. Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. Chaz Glick, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 590 Madison Ave., 21st Fl. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com tgiordano@clarksonlawfirm.com zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over Erroneous Impact Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Anne Serbin, writing for Missoulian, reports that the city of Whitefish is embroiled in controversy over millions of dollars in impact fees allegedly assessed erroneously to developers over the past three years. "The city of Whitefish grossly overcharged its residents for water and sewer fees," said Attorney Mark Kovacich, who represents the plaintiffs in a class action suit against the city. Kovacich is a principal at Kovacich Snipes Johnson, P.C. out of Great Falls. Missoula's Laird Cowley, PLLC is also part of the suit. In February 2022, a collection of developers sought millions in refunds for impact fees assessed starting in 2019. The suit is still pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Kovacich alleged the city misapplied its own engineering calculations and charged developers for future projects. Although the city eventually admitted to wrongdoing, Kovacich believes the depth of the miscalculations goes farther than the city has acknowledged, and Whitefish's approach to repaying current homeowners fails to compensate prior homeowners who paid the enlarged fees. [GN] WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Faces Suit Over Leaked Sensitive Patient Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Thomas of KLSA News reports that 2 large hospital systems in La. being sued for allegedly sharing sensitive patient data with Facebook & Instagram. Two of the biggest hospitals in Louisiana are being sued for allegedly sharing sensitive patient data with out their knowledge or consent. The class-action lawsuit filed by Herman Herman & Katz claims the two hospitals have been using a tracking code embedded in their websites that shares patient information without their knowledge or consent. The law firm says the computer code is known as Meta Pixel, and was created by the company that owns Facebook and Instagram; they say it collected, analyzed and shared medical data from hundreds of thousands of patients. The two hospitals in question are LCMC Health System in the New Orleans area and Willis-Knighton Health System in northwest Louisiana. LCMC Health Systems includes a number of hospitals and medical facilities in the New Orleans area, including Children's Hospital, East Jefferson General Hospital, New Orleans East Hospital, Touro, University Medical Center New Orleans and West Jefferson Medical Center. Willis-Knighton Health System is the biggest healthcare provider in NWLA and includes Willis-Knighton Medical Center, Willis-Knighton South & the Center for Women's Health, WK Bossier Health Center, WK Pierremont Health Center and WK Rehabilitation Institute. "We are learning more and more about this shocking breach of trust as our investigation continues," said Herman Herman & Katz partner Stephen Herman. "This was a gross invasion of privacy that went on for years." The lawsuit says the Meta Pixel code was created by the company Meta and narrowly targets users with digital ads. When people would use the health systems' websites to schedule an appointment, the code would allegedly capture sensitive personal information such as medical conditions, prescriptions, doctors' names and other appointments, then send the information to Facebook. The firm says in one case, for example, a woman got targeted ads about heart disease and joint pain just after entering her info into one of the hospitals' websites. The lawsuit goes on to claim the use of the Meta Pixel violates HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), which prohibits sharing personal health information with a third party without the patient's consent. Willis-Knighton's attorney sent the following statement about the lawsuit: "Willis-Knighton is one of many hospitals throughout the nation (including Louisiana) who have recently been sued regarding the very common use of digital media marketing tools. While we do not comment on ongoing litigation, Willis-Knighton is committed to protecting the privacy of those who communicate with us on a digital platform." LCMC Health issued the following statement: "LCMC Health is deeply committed to patient privacy and takes any implication that data has been shared inappropriately with the utmost urgency. We are aware of the pending lawsuit and intend to defend LCMC Health vigorously against the plaintiffs' claims." Herman Herman & Katz is working with two other law firms on this case: AZA Law in Houston and Kelly & Townsend LLC in Natchitoches. [GN] WIN WASTE: Motion to Dismiss Declarations as Evidence Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Charlie McKenna of ItemLive.com reports that in a February 6, 2023 motion asking a judge to dismiss the declarations as evidence in the suit, which was filed by Brenda Sweetland and other residents living near the company's waste-to-energy facility in US District Court in May 2021. A federal judge is set to rule on whether or not declarations obtained in support of WIN Waste Innovations by Saugus Board of Selectmen Chair Anthony Cogliano are admissible as evidence in a class action lawsuit filed against the company, after it came to light that Cogliano signed the documents rather than those whose declarations would be used as evidence. The revelation came to light in a Feb. 6 motion asking a judge to dismiss the declarations as evidence in the suit, which was filed by Brenda Sweetland and other residents living near the company's waste-to-energy facility in US District Court in May 2021. The suit alleges that Sweetland and other residents of Saugus and Revere living near the facility suffered damages in the form of decreased property values and an inability to enjoy their properties due to dust and noxious odors emanating from the Salem Turnpike facility. In a statement, the company called the suit "meritless" and said there are "no odor or dust impacts from our Saugus facility." In response to the filing of the suit, the company reached out to residents of Saugus and Revere to "confirm" that they did not experience adverse effects due to the facility. It was during that process that a representative of the company contacted Cogliano, himself a lifelong resident of the area of Saugus nearest to WIN's facility, for help. Cogliano, the most prominent elected official in town, has been proactive in trying to improve the town's relationship with WIN. He spearheaded the creation of a Landfill Committee, which worked to craft a Host Community Agreement (HCA) with the company. The HCA is set to come before the Board of Selectmen for a third time at their Feb. 21 meeting. When Cogliano was approached by the company to collect signatures from residents he knew who would sign a declaration stating they experienced no adverse effects from the facility, he did so by phone, asking them if they had any issue with WIN, then signing the declarations with their permission. Cogliano allegedly did so without informing them he was submitting a document on their behalf to be used in a class action lawsuit. When the company's attorneys learned that Cogliano signed the declarations himself, they contacted the plaintiff and asked Cogliano to obtain signatures from the residents he had submitted declarations on behalf of. He did so, driving to their homes and obtaining their signatures. But, the filing argues, the supplemental declarations do not remedy the apparent error of Cogliano signing the initial declarations. "Nothing could be further from the truth," the filing reads. "Defendant's tactics in procuring supplemental declarations remained just as abusive, misleading, and coercive and warrant an order excluding them from evidence." The filing notes that many of the supplemental declarations — 17 of 19 — were all signed on the same date: Aug. 20, 2022. Cogliano filled the forms out on behalf of the residents, leaving them only to sign the documents. In a deposition, Cogliano said each interaction took roughly a minute. "I showed up just asking them for their signature," he said. Part of the issue Cogliano now faces is his apparent lack of explanation of what the declarations were and what he was asking residents to sign. One declarant, John Cooper, said in a deposition that he "did not read" the declaration and Cogliano "did not ask" him to read it. Another, Craig Serino, whose cousin Michael serves on the Board of Selectmen with Cogliano, did not recall reading the document and said "if I read it, I just signed anyway." Serino said Cogliano approached him at the gym, asking if he wanted to sign something. In an interview, Cogliano said he was never instructed to get residents to physically sign the declarations, and that he did not know what the company intended to use the documents for. "When they asked me to get the signatures I got them," he said. He went on to denounce the suit as a whole, particularly the backlash to his involvement, writing in a statement that he felt it was "an attempt to attack my integrity and my commitment to Saugus." "Now, after we have completed a community-driven process to begin the conversation on an HCA, when the town has taken its first steps in getting some benefit from the plant on the Salem Turnpike, this lawsuit pops up and I get personally attacked," Cogliano said, adding that he believed the suit and the HCA had nothing to do with one another. "I have always put Saugus and its residents first. " The motion asks a judge to bar the company from using the declarations in its response to the suit, and to award the plaintiff more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket costs, which were used in the discovery of how Cogliano obtained the signatures. [GN] YOLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bride Estate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE ESTATE OF CARSON BRIDE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled The Estate of Carson Bride, by and through his appointed administrator Kristin Bride, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yolo Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06680-FWS-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for strict liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Business and Professional Code and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' development, maintenance, and marketing of Snapchat, YOLO, and LMK messaging applications that are inherently dangerous and unsafe. Due to the Defendants' apps' defective design and their misrepresentations, millions of users are harmed daily, suffering permanent consequences, including Carson Bride, a 16-year-old teenager who took his own life after being a victim of cyberbullying on the said mobile apps. This action demands that the Defendants be held accountable for the wrongful deaths, personal injuries, and other losses that Carson Bride and his family have suffered as a result of the Defendants' defective and dangerously designed apps. On Aug. 18, 2021, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Fred W. Slaughter on Jan. 10, 2023. The Court concluded that based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Defendants are immunized under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and permitting further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned The Estate of Carson Bride, et al. v. Yolo Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55134, in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 14, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants A. C., A. K., A. O., The Estate of Carson Bride and Tyler Clementi Foundation Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 21, 2023; -- Appellant transcript is due on April 10, 2023; -- Appellants A. C., A. K., A. O., The Estate of Carson Bride and Tyler Clementi Foundation opening brief is due on May 22, 2023; -- Appellees LightSpace, Inc. and Yolo Technologies, Inc. answering brief is due on June 21, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THE ESTATE OF CARSON BRIDE, by and through his appointed administrator KRISTIN BRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Juyoun Han, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP 24 Union Square, E. Penthouse New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 353-8700 Defendants-Appellees YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. are represented by: Emma Moralyan, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 - and - Ramnik S. Pujji, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-6120 - and - Carol Yur, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-6147 [*] Hogan Lovells Provides Update on EU Member Directive Adoption ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Aurrekoetxea, Esq., Jessica Booij, Esq., Leonore Bruining, Esq., Sarah de Magalhaes, Esq., Christian Di Mauro, Esq., and Enrica Ferrero, Esq., of Hogan Lovells, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that by 25 December 2022, all EU Member States were expected to have adopted and published, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (the "Directive"). The Directive expects application of its rules beginning 25 June 2023. So far, things have developed behind schedule in some Member States. Several Member States may receive a formal letter of notice from the Commission for having failed to transpose the Directive into their national law within the deadline. Therefore we may now see fast paced legislative proceedings in these jurisdictions. Time to take a closer look at the developments in some of the larger jurisdictions. France - A new French bill introducing an unified legal regime for class actions A new French bill introducing an unified legal regime for class actions was filed by the French Assembly on 15 December 2022, which is not yet final and will be discussed between the MPs during public sessions. Amendments to this new French bill were filed by MPs on 9, 10, 11 and 14 February 2023 and were discussed by the Commission for Constitutional Law, Legislation and the General Administration of the Republic on 15 February 2023. Next public discussions are scheduled on 8 and 9 March 2023. If the text is adopted by the French Assembly, it will then be sent to the French Senate. French class actions have not been as successful or widespread as anticipated so far. There is a preference for the collective action route, which has always existed under French law, and which offered the quickest procedural routes to obtain compensation. This new French bill aims at simplifying the class action procedure, ensuring better compensation for the consumers concerned and shortening the time within a judgment is issued. The new French bill introduces one single and unified legal regime for all class actions in civil matters. Hence, the various legal regimes of class actions in civil matters currently codified in different French Codes depending on the nature of the claim would be deleted. In a nutshell, the main notable measures suggested are as follows: The extension of the association's right to act and initiate class actions to a certain number of associations that do not meet the criteria currently required, notably by entitling associations as well as ad hoc associations that meet certain criteria. The deletion of the prior formal notice ("lettre de mise en demeure") to be sent by the association to the defendant at least 4 months before initiating a class action that was mandatary depending on the nature of the claim. The creation of a civil penalty, independent of the damage suffered, to be paid by the defendant under certain conditions. The extension of the Judge in Charge of Procedural Matters' powers with the possibility to enjoin the defendant to cease its alleged wrongdoing before a judgment on the merits is handed down by the Court. The increased involvement of the Public Prosecutor's Office within the class action proceedings, with the possibility to initiate a class action for all civil matters for injunctive relief (as the main party), or to intervene in any class actions initiated by authorised associations (as a joint party). The Public Prosecutor's Office is immediately to be informed of any class actions launched. The exclusive jurisdiction of specialised French Judicial Courts for ruling on class actions. Germany - Public consultation opened The German government has still not produced an official transposition bill to date. The Federal Ministry of Justice released a draft proposal which is not yet fully aligned within the Federal Government. Notwithstanding this the Federal Ministry of Justice has invited trade associations and other interested third parties to comment on the implementation of the Directive and to provide statements by 3 March 2023. See here our previous published more detailed analysis of the current draft proposal by the German Federal Ministry of Justice. Italy- Legislative Decree proposal from the Government, awaiting for the final approval On 7 December 2022 the Council of Ministers preliminarily approved the draft Legislative Decree implementing the Directive ("Draft Decree"). Recently the Italian Senate and the Chamber of Deputies expressed their favourable opinion on the Draft Decree and suggested some minor edits. As the Parliament provided its opinion by the assigned deadline, we expect that the final version of the Draft Decree will be approved in due course (i.e. Q2 2023). According to the Draft Decree, the bill will enter into force starting from 25 June 2023 as requested by the Directive. Italy had already introduced a new regime in 2021, included in the Italian Civil Procedure Code ("ICPC"), under which class actions (both redress and injunction measures) can be brought. As the scope of application of the existing class action system provided by the ICPC is broader than the Directive's one as regards both the subject matter and the entities entitled to bring representative actions, only minor adjustments of the new regime were expected. However, quite surprisingly, the Draft Decree includes a new section in the Consumer Code instead of modifying the existing provisions on class action set forth in the ICPC, thus creating parallel and, in some cases, alternative systems for Italian consumers. The Draft Decree lays down rules on jurisdiction and procedure which are similar to the ones governing the existing class actions system provided by the ICPC, but some innovations are worth noting: From now on, it will be possible for qualified entities to bring cross-border representative actions (if the unlawful conduct affects consumers from different Member States, the representative action may be brought jointly by qualified entities of different Member States) in order to seek, also jointly, compensation or the adoption of injunctive measures. In relation to injunctive measures, it will be possible, if grounds of urgency exist, to claim for provisional injunctive measures pending the proceedings. Moreover, the qualified entities submitting a motion for preliminary injunctive relief shall not be required to prove the traders' fraud or negligence, nor actual losses or damages suffered by consumers. Finally, the Draft Decree requires that a letter of formal notice must be sent before an injunction action can be brought (it can only be brought if traders fail to comply within 15 days). In relation to redress measures, the Draft Decree, as incentive, provides that the consumer -- if the action is not successful -- shall be ordered to reimburse the legal costs to traders only in the case of wilful misconduct or gross negligence. Netherlands -- on 23 November 2022 the implementation act was published -- it enters into force on 25 June 2023 The Netherlands have already passed its implementation Act for the Directive. The Act amends the current WAMCA regime. The Netherlands has established itself as a leading jurisdiction for class action litigation. The implementation act enters into force on 25 June 2023. The scope of the current WAMCA regime is already broader than the scope of the Directive. The current WAMCA regime can be used for any type of civil law claims (i.e. all industries, consumers and non-consumers, public interest claims, etc.). On certain topics the Representative Actions Directive is however more strict and amendments to the WAMCA regime of a rather procedural and systematic nature were necessary: Some changes made only apply to the cases covered by the Directive, for other cases the amended requirements do not apply. For example, for cases falling under the Directive, the funding provider may not fund a representative action brought against a defendant that is a competitor of the funding provider or against a defendant on which the funding provider is dependent. Dutch courts may not assess whether foreign qualified entities, which are communicated and on the list of the European Commission, are entitled to bring cross-border actions (as they are required to do with Dutch organizations), but may only assess whether the specific collective action of the foreign qualified entity meets the WAMCA requirements. The WAMCA opt-out possibility does apply only to Dutch consumers and not to consumers from other Member States to whom the opt-in mechanism, as required by the Directive, applies. Poland - Draft law from the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection now under the supervision of the Council of Ministers On 6 December 2022 the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection provisionally prepared the draft law implementing the Directive ("Draft"). The Draft was published together with the explanatory memorandum on 21 December 2022 and is now under the supervision of the Council of Ministers. Currently, a public consultation is taking place and several opinions have already been reported, including those of the National Judiciary Council and the Polish Supreme Court. Afterwards, the draft will be evaluated in various committees. In light of this, we do not expect that the final version of the draft will be approved earlier than Q2 2023. According to the Draft, the bill should enter into force starting from 25 June 2023 as requested by the Directive. The Draft envisages the introduction of a model of group actions against entrepreneurs. Provision is made for two types of class actions in domestic group proceedings and cross-border group proceedings brought on behalf of consumers by qualified entities. So far, the Draft foresees that scope of the cases that are the subject of class actions will correspond to the scope set forth in Annex I to the Directive. Group and class actions are already available in Poland, but are time consuming, formalistic and possible only in certain areas of law. After the implementation, it is expected that class actions may become much more common in Poland. Spain - Council of Ministers approved preliminary draft On 20 December 2022 the Council of Ministers has approved the Preliminary Draft Law ("APL") of Representation Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers; the implementation is still ongoing. Although the Spanish legal system already provides consumers with the possibility to bring collective actions, the APL aims to create an unitary and coherent system of collective protection, which will put an end to the current regulatory dispersion in this area. Its principal purpose is to remedy consumer's weakness in judicial proceedings, as in most cases there is a disproportion between the costs which consumers have to incur to prove the entrepreneur's unlawful conduct, and the money consumers recover. The main notable measures suggested in the APL are as follows. The creation of a special proceedings to process collective representative actions. This proceedings will be included in the Spanish Civil Procedure Act ("Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil"). The inclusion of a new title defining the types of representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers: declaratory actions requesting cessation of conducts and redress (damages) actions. These two actions may be brought cumulatively or separately. If the actions are brought cumulatively, the judge may decide whether to hear them cumulatively or separately (in the latest case the redress action would be suspended until there is a decision on the declaratory action). The possibility of reaching an agreement within the process is foreseen in the APL. The peculiarity of this agreement is that it must be approved by the judge. Very importantly, the APL defines an opt-out system. Therefore the affected consumers who don't want to be affected by the lawsuit must expressly decline to participate. The declination to participate should be done through an electronic platform. The use of an electronic platform constitutes a real innovation that will allow a smoother proceeding and an advantage for consumers, who will have an easy access to the most up-to-date information on the proceedings. Another procedural novelty is the certification hearing, in which the court will verify that the necessary homogeneity of the claims is met and that the action is not manifestly unfounded. If the requirements are met, the court will issue the certification order, a crucial part of the process, since it will determine the objective scope of the process (alleged infringements of the trader examined) and its subjective scope (the consumers concerned). In relation to evidence, the APL establishes a mechanism whereby important data for the proceedings held by the entrepreneur or third parties would more easily accessible (including information to identify the consumers affected). What's next Watch out for political discussions and on-going implementation. The Directive provides for optional features that could lead to some differences between the implementing laws in Member States. We are already seeing differences e.g. in the approach to opt-in or opt-out participation or the admissibility of ad hoc created qualified entities. So far, only some Member States have published their official draft implementation bill to transpose the Directive into national law. We expect to see an acceleration on the national transposition proceedings in the first two quarters of 2023. Outlook Overall, the Directive will strengthen the cross-border angle, as consumers can join actions in other EU Member States and qualified entities can act as plaintiffs across borders. Whilst collective action mechanisms have been very different so far in the EU Member States, the Directive compels the Member States implementing as minimum standard for collective redress the Directive' representative action procedure for injunction and redress measures. For practice, the different national provisions on transition of pending lawsuits and pre-implementation matters will be of particular interest. [GN] [*] West Tisbury, MA Eligible to Join Suit Over PFAS Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vineyard Gazette reports that West Tisbury may receive a legal lifeline in their effort to respond to a contamination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the town water supply. According to town counsel Ron Rappaport, they are eligible to join a class action lawsuit against manufacturers of firefighting foams that caused the contamination. The state department of environmental protection notified West Tisbury last month that they found 10 contaminated private wells near the fire station, identifying the town as the party responsible for remediation. On Feb 2, the select board voted to direct $304,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds to hire environmental consulting firm Wilcox and Barton. At a board meeting on Feb 15, Mr. Rappaport said that the town would be able to join an ongoing lawsuit against the manufactures. "We have a couple lawyers who have reached out…they would propose to represent the town as a plaintiff in that multi-party litigation in South Carolina, 100 per cent on a contingency basis," he said, emphasizing that there would be no cost to the town before a payout. Mr. Rappaport suggested the town join the South Carolina suit, since a similar suit from the Massachusetts attorney general's office has their attention divided across the state. Mr. Rappaport plans to present final contracts for approval on Feb 22. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***