/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 46 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid Dismiss False Ads Claims Granted in Part ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Flaccus Seeks Conditional Class Certification ALICO INC: Faces Sinder Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ANYWHERE REAL: Burnett Trial to Continue Until October 2023 AP GAS: Bid to Dismiss Abramson Class Suit Denied w/o Prejudice APPLE INC: Hearing to Certify Options Investor Class Continued APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Hearing ARDIAN CORP: Avila Bid for Conditional Certification Granted AUDIBLE INC: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert Reply Brief AVANTUS LLC: Seeks Confirmation of May 8 Class Cert Response Date BARILLA AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Illinois BERANEK LLC: Moreno Suit Seeks to Recover Operators' Unpaid Wages BEST OF FRIENDS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Woods Alleges BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA BLUE DIAMOND: Seeks March 10 Extension of Class Cert Response BODY & POLE: Swain Parties' Settlement Bid Gets Initial Nod BRIAN MELICKE MOORE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Offences BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Duane Morris Discusses Ruling in FLSA Suit BROWN UNIVERSITY: Text Class Scheduling Order Entered in Soenen CANADA: Settles Drinking Water Class Action Suit for $8-Bil. CARE ONE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Implement COVID-19 Guidelines CENTRASTATE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack CG CONSULTING: Court Denies Bid for Leave to File Amended Motion CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lakeenya Class Suit CORELOGIC CREDCO: Extension of Class Status Deadlines Sought CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Discovery Cutoff Deadline Extension Denied CSX TRANS: Bid to Set Class Cert Briefing Sched in Edwards OK'd CVS PHARMACY: Court Modifies Subpoena to Encompass Purchases Only DAPPER LABS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over NBA Top Shot NFTs Denied DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 18 DISTRICT 5: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Lopez DOCCS: Court OK's Burrell in Forma Pauperis Application DOCTORS REPORTING: Phase 1 Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Has Until March 3 to File Reply EMPIRE ONE: Charges Inaccurate Overdraft Fees, Kuzub Suit Claims EVERBRIDGE INC: Bid to Dismiss Ellertson Class Suit Pending EZRIRX LLC: Seeks to Strike Class Claims in Boone's TCPA Suit FERMENTED SCIENCES: Court Selects ADR Process in Starratt Suit FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot FORD MOTOR: Bid for Leave to Deny Class Cert. OK'd in Tucker Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Brief GO-STAFF INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Stubblefield Alleges GPB HOLDINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in DeLuca Class Suit H.I.S. GUAM: Loses Bid to Dismiss Igarashi Suit HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Williams Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection HARBOR FREIGHT: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers Wages, Suit Says HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages, Villarin Alleges HEALTH RECOVERY: Frechette Seeks More Time to File Reply HEIDI WASHINGTON: Boussum Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Wisconsin Over Car Thefts ILLINOIS: Discovery Extended to May 2 in Kainz Class Suit ILLUSORY SYSTEMS: Faces Singh Suit Over Nomad Enterprise Conspiracy INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit JABIL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Huynh Suit JACK HULLAND: Nine Affidavits Filed in Child Abuse Class Action JD PALATINE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in Neuman Suit JONES LANG: Fails to Pay Workers' Timely Wages, Vinas Alleges KIA AMERICA: Sebastian Balks at Vehicles' Defective Security System KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit LITIGATION PRACTICE: Centralization of 11 Actions in Ohio Tossed MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Dates MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Court OKs Extension of Class Cert Response MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Jobe v. CMC MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Sheth v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Simkins v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Sloane v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Zielinski v. Blackbaud MDL 3055: Gutierrez Case Transferred to District of New Jersey MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over Panoramic Sunroofs MERCY HEALTH: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Junked MICHIGAN: Motion to Dismiss Children Foster Care Suit Dismissed MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion for Sanctions Against Lawyer MONEYGRAM INTL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Plaintiffs Win Rule 23 Class Certification NATIONAL FREIGHT: Court Denies Bid for Class Decertification NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Class Suit Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. NEW YORK, NY: Brennan, et al., File Bid for Class Certification NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Lawsuits Pile Up Following Trail Derailment NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Monopolization NORWEX USA: Faces Mahler TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Prerecorded Calls OLO INC: Continues to Defend Steamship Securities Class Suit OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Mangrove Partners Class Suit PALMDALE 794 INC: Faces Wage Class Action Suit in California PEABODY ENERGY: Settlement in OFPRS Suit Wins Final Nod PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Loses Bid to Certify Class PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024 RICE DRILLING: Court Reschedules Class Cert. Hearing in J&R Suit ROBERT G. MILLER: Consumer Law Group Files Sexual Exploitation Suit S.C. JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Rosenberg Suit SALISBURY BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed NBT Merger SHINE JUSTICE: May Face Class Action Suit Over Accounting Practices SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Faces Valencia Suit Over Fruit Beverage False Ads SPLUNK INC: Class Certification Bid Terminated in Securities Suit SPOKEO INC: Court OK's Stipulation to Modify Briefing Schedule STAPLES THE OFFICE: Court Partly Grants Corral Class Cert Bid SUEZ WTS: Scheduling Order Deadlines Continued in Bulnes Suit SUMTER ORIGINAL: Stokes, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action TRANSAT AT: Motion to Certify Suit Over Delayed Flights Dismissed TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 26 Order UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment in DeFries Class Action UNITED SERVICES: Court OKs Schupp's Bid to Remand UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot in L.F.O.P. UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Ruse & Knock and Talk Class VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Bid to Extend Time to Object Tossed VIANT UPLAND: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum & OT Wages, Sing Says VOLTA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Securities' Violations VOLVO CARS: Wins Summary Judgment in Laurens Class Action WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sousa Suit WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend Collinsville Consolidated Suit WEBMD LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid WORKDAY INC: Faces Mobley Class Suit Over Job Screening Process XTO ENERGY: Court Won't Support Documents Filed Under Seal YELP INC: Class Certification Reversal Petition Pending [*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! [*] Slovakia Set to Introduce First Ever Class Action Mechanism [*] UK Law Firms Net More Than GBP1-Bil. from US-Style Class Suits Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 900 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 37,200 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace & Co. Settles Montana Claims for $18.5MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Pays $166MM in Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $20.3MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Defends Exposure Lawsuits ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid Dismiss False Ads Claims Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al., v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order granting in part and denying in part Abbott's motion to dismiss the false advertising claims brought under California law. -- The Court grants dismissal of the causes of action based on violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. section 349, violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. section 350, Unjust Enrichment under New York law, Negligent Misrepresentation under New York law, and Intentional Misrepresentation under New York law. -- The Court grants in part dismissal of claims brought based on violation of UCL, FAL, and CLRA, breach of Express Warranties under Cal. 22 Com. Code section 2313(1), Implied Warranty of Merchantability under Cal. Com. Code section 2314, Unjust Enrichment under California law, Negligent Misrepresentation under California law, and Intentional Misrepresentation under California law (1) to the extent those claims rely on statements that the Court has determined are preempted nutrient content claims, and (2) to the extent those claims rely on the statement "Discover More at Ensure.Com," and otherwise denies dismissal of those claims. The Court grant grants Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. In sum, the Court finds LeGrand "sets forth more than the neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction" as well as "what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false." Abbott is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Abbott Park, Illinois. The Plaintiffs filed the instant action on October 6, 2022, seeking to bring a class action under Rule 23 on behalf of themselves and other consumers who bought Ensure Nutrition Drinks. The Plaintiffs define members of a nationwide class, as well as California and New York subclasses, as: "all persons in the United States, and subclasses of all persons in California and in New York, who, at any time from four years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint to the time a class is notified (the 'Class Period'), purchased, for person or household use, and not for resale or distribution, any of the Ensure Nutrition Drinks (the 'Class')." Abbott sells a line of "nutrition" drinks under the "Ensure" brand, including Ensure Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake, Ensure Enlive Advanced Nutrition Shake, Ensure Compact Therapeutic Nutrition Shake, Ensure Clear Nutrition Drink, and Ensure Original Nutrition Powder. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SrYUgm at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Flaccus Seeks Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE FLACCUS, v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES EASTERN PA, INC. f/k/a ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SHIPPENSBURG, LLC; and ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOUTH, LLC f/k/a ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:17-cv-04808-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the parties' class settlement; 2. conditionally certifying the settlement class; 3. appointing her as class representative and her counsel as class counsel; 4. approving the notice program; and 5. scheduling the final approval hearing. This motion is not opposed by the Defendants. Advanced Disposal provides several waste and recycling services in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xUJKXj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Mather, Esq. Andrew J. Belli, Esq. COREN & RESS, P.C. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8700 Facsimile: (215) 735-5170 E-mail: bmather@kcr-law.com abelli@kcr-law.com ALICO INC: Faces Sinder Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALICO, INC., JOHN E. KIERNAN, PERRY DEL VECCHIO, and RICHARD RALLO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00107 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 17, 2023) is a federal securities class action 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, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. On December 6, 2022, Alico issued a press release stating 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 SEC. Finally, on December 13, 2022, Alico filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2022. 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. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff acquired Alico securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures, the suit alleges. Alico, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an agribusiness and land management company in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 903-3170 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com - and - J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com ANYWHERE REAL: Burnett Trial to Continue Until October 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------- Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri will continue the Burnett class suit trial until October 2023. Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a now-certified class action complaint, which was filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May 6, 2022 (formerly captioned as Sitzer). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require listing brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that "but for" the challenged NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer broker compensation would not be made and plaintiffs seek the recovery of any commissions paid to buyers' brokers as to both brokerage and franchised operations in the relevant geographic area. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring their respective brokerages/franchisees to comply with NAR's policies, rules, and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying buyer broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation. Plaintiffs’ experts dispute defendants' contention that the practice of offering and paying buyer broker compensation is based on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and also contend that international practices are comparable benchmarks. The antitrust claims in the Burnett litigation are limited both in allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29, 2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four MLSs that primarily serve the State of Missouri, purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or from otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble damages. In addition, the plaintiffs include a cause of action for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period that commences April 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in conduct in violation of the MMPA, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on October 16, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July 2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all materials produced in this matter. The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022. The Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 2, 2022. The class the Court has certified includes, according to plaintiffs, over 310,000 transactions for which the plaintiffs are seeking a full refund of the buyer brokers’ commissions. On December 16, 2022, the Court issued a decision denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment in this matter. The Court's summary-judgment decision holds that plaintiffs have adduced evidence to support their contention that the challenged rules constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act. Because other courts considering similar antitrust challenges to MLS rules have held that such rules cannot be treated as per se violations, the defendants filed a motion asking the Court to certify the issue for a discretionary interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, but the motion was denied by the Court on January 27, 2023. On December 29, 2022 the court also entered an order directing the parties to conduct a mediation no later than March 15, 2023. On February 6, 2023, the court was advised that the parties had participated in the court-ordered mediation. This case had been scheduled to go to trial in February 2023. The court has now continued the trial until October 2023. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. AP GAS: Bid to Dismiss Abramson Class Suit Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. AP GAS & ELECTRIC (PA), LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01299-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint and/or to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations, and the briefs filed in support and in opposition thereto. It is further ordered that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the Plaintiff wishes to appeal from this order he or she must do so within 30 days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed. R. App. P., with the clerk of court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. The Plaintiff Abramson initiated this action against the Defendant alleging that AP Gas violated the Telephone Consumer Protections Act ("TCPA"), by sending pre-recorded telemarketing calls to Abramson and purported class members to promote AP Gas goods and services without their consent. AP Gas contends that dismissal is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, that Abramson's claim for injunctive relief must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. In addition, AP Gas seeks to strike the class allegations. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lUi6Hd at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Hearing to Certify Options Investor Class Continued -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting stipulation to continue hearing on Lead Plaintiff's supplemental motion to certify class of apple options investors and defendants' motion for summary judgment: On April 15, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion to Certify Class of Apple Options Investors. On September 9, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. on February 6, 2023, the Court set an in-person hearing to take place on March 7, 2023 at 2 p.m. for both Lead Plaintiff's Supplemental Class Certification Motion and Defendants' Motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kmAVTa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP The Defendant is represented by: James N. Kramer, Esq. Michael D. Torpey, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com mtorpey@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file stipulation and proposed order to continue hearing on Lead Plaintiff's supplemental motion to certify class of Apple options investors and Defendants' motion for summary judgment. On April 15, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion to Certify Class of Apple Options Investors. Oon September 9, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. on February 6, 2023, the Court set an in-person hearing to take place on March 7, 2023 at 2 p.m. for both Lead Plaintiff's Supplemental Class Certification Motion and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The lead counsel for the Defendants has a previously scheduled commitment that requires him to travel outside of the Bay Area on March 7, 2023, and therefore respectfully requests, subject to the Court's availability, that the Court continue the hearing by one week to March 14, 2023. The counsel for the Lead Plaintiff does not oppose the requested continuance to March 14, 2023. Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States. A copy of the Parties' order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XUdZZ6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP The Defendant is represented by: James N. Kramer, Esq. Michael D. Torpey, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com mtorpey@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com ARDIAN CORP: Avila Bid for Conditional Certification Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORIO VELASCO AVILA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. ARDIAN CORP. d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, MACCG LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, TK BELL LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, ARDIAN SKENDERI, and CATERINA SKENDERI, Case No. 1:18-cv-04795-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an granting Avila's motion for conditional certification. The Court approves the proposed notice. The Defendants shall make available to Avila's counsel all information necessary to send the notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Any further disputes concerning the notice shall be addressed, in the first instance, to the assigned magistrate judge, the Court says. Mr. Avila alleges that his former employer failed to pay him in accordance with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law. The Court previously denied his motion to certify his state-law claims as a class action, finding that some of those claims raised common issues of law and fact, but that individual issues regarding hours worked and wages owed predominated over those issues. Ardian is an independent private investment company that provides a diverse range of investment opportunities and responds to clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kf3NMY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 The Defendants are represented by: Vincent Avery, Esq. FordHarrison, LLP 366 Madison Avenue, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10017 AUDIBLE INC: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties request the Court's approval of a procedure for moving to seal Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Reply Brief") and the supporting exhibits. The Plaintiffs intend to file documents Plaintiffs and/or Audible designated as "confidential" or "highly confidential" pursuant to the parties' Protective Order in support of their Reply Brief. The Plaintiffs are still preparing the Reply Brief and do not have a final brief or set of documents they intend to file in support. On February 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs notified Audible of their intention to file Audible's confidential and highly confidential documents, and the parties agreed on the below procedure, which is similar to the one the Court approved for Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Class Certification and Audible's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of spoken word content. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IN5ue7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. Christopher Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 226-1913 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com cbagley@farrin.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. Leland Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com lbelew@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn J. Fritz, Esq. Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. Nicholas A. Santos, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 E-mail: kfritz@fenwick.com jwakefield@fenwick.com nsantos@fenwick.com - and - Brian D. Buckley, Esq. Deena Feit, Esq. Wenbo Zhang, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 1191 Second Avenue, 10th floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4510 E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com dfeit@fenwick.com wzhang@fenwick.com AVANTUS LLC: Seeks Confirmation of May 8 Class Cert Response Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berryman v. Avantus, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01651-JBA (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order confirming that the May 8, 2023 deadline applies to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff Lonnie R. Berryman, Jr. filed his Motion to Certify Class . The PACER docket entry stated "Responses due by Feb. 15, 2023. However, the Court's operative scheduling order provides that responses to Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by May 8, 2023. Avantus LLC is a business-to-business credit reporting agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IjfVEO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew C. Gresik, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Suite 5000, 150 East Gilman Street Madison, WI 53703-1482 Telephone: (608) 257.5035 Facsimile: (608) 258.4258 E-mail: agresik@foley.com BARILLA AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new class action accuses pasta maker Barilla of misleading consumers by claiming theirs is "Italy's #1 brand of pasta." Paula Slouras, on behalf of herself and others, filed a new class action against Barilla America Inc. on Feb. 14 in Cook County Circuit Court. The lawsuit asserts Barilla's packaging is intentionally mislabeled, misleading consumers. The suit alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), for intentionally mislabeling products to depict the appearance of a pasta produced in Italy using only Italian ingredients, misleading her unfairly as a consumer she claims. Challenging the veracity of the claims food manufacturers prominently display on their packaging, Slouras joins another currently unsettled 2022 class action also against Barilla filed by Jessica Prost of Los Angeles and Matthew Sinatro of San Francisco. In nearly identical cases, Slouras states in court documents, that the Illinois-based company founded in Italy in 1897, promotes their products as "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta". According to their website, with the exception of Barilla's Tortellini and oven-ready lasagna still manufactured in Italy, the remaining products are manufactured in New York and Iowa using globally sourced ingredients that are not necessarily from Italy. In both cases, the plaintiffs argue a reasonable person would have been misled by the prominent packaging. Although she likes the product and intends to purchase it again, Slouras states in court documents that she would only do so if the packaging was an accurate reflection of the product's true character. She further stipulated that most people of average intelligence, would have been equally misled by the alleged false advertising. Barilla is just one amid a burgeoning trend challenging food manufacturers as to the validity of their claims in the legal arena. Salouras is also not a rookie on the subject of false advertising. This is Salouras' second case against a large food manufacturer. In 2021, Salouras filed a nearly identical class action against Sara Lee Bakery. That case was voluntarily dismissed when a similar case against Sara Lee settled out of court. Plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury, damages, court costs and attorney fees. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle of Lubin Austermuehle, of Oak Brook Terrace, and Bruce W. Steckler, of Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, of Dallas. [GN] BERANEK LLC: Moreno Suit Seeks to Recover Operators' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL MORENO, on behalf of himself, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. BERANEK LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BERANEK INC., a California corporation; ERIC BERANEK, an individual; GEORGE BERANEK, an individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV03379 (Cal. Super., Feb. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for failure to: -- pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; -- provide all rest breaks and meal periods; -- indemnify for business expenses; -- provide accurate and complete written wage statements; and -- timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment. Accordingly, Moreno and the other Aggrieved Employees were not paid for all hours worked and consistently worked "off the clock" in that the company had a policy and practice of rounding down work hours. Moreover, Beranek staff, including Eric Beranek, would often speak to or text Moreno and others about work-related matters after they had clocked out at the end of his shifts. Due to the above "off the clock" violations, Beranek failed to pay Moreno and the Aggrieved Employees properly-calculated overtime wages. The Aggrieved Employees' actual work hours, which included the "off the clock" work as described above, entitled them to overtime, however, it was not company policy to keep accurate track of all hours worked and to pay employees the accurate amount of overtime, especially since the "off the clock" work was not factored into the equation, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff also has individual claims against Defendants for unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, retaliation, and wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy, the lawsuit adds. Beranek began to employ the Plaintiff on October 11, 2021 in Torrance, California in the position of hourly, non-exempt CNC machinist/operator. Beranek continuously employed the Plaintiff in that capacity until February 13, 2022 when the Plaintiff's employment ended. Beranek LLC is a manufacturer of precision-machined components for the Aerospace, Defense and Commercial Industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Central Ave., Ste 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone (818) 810-7747 Facsimile (818) 230-9018 E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com BEST OF FRIENDS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Woods Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHELLE WOODS and TERRANCE MUHAMMAD, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. BEST OF FRIENDS HOME CARE SERVICES LLP, Case No. 2:23-cv-00713-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendant allegedly failed to incorporate the various non-discretionary shift differential pay rates into the determination of Plaintiffs' regular rate for purposes of calculating their overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. As a result, the Plaintiffs were deprived of duly earned overtime pay at the proper overtime rate. Throughout the relevant times subject to this Complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy and pay practice which failed to pay the Plaintiffs one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, the suit contends. Rachel Woods and Terrance Muhammad are former home health aides that Defendant previously employed. Best of Friends is a health care provider based in Delaware, Ohio that is operating as a homemaker personal care agency that offers companionship, fellowship, and transportation services for those with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO, L.P.A. 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bclerose@barkanmeizlish.com jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- HA NGUYEN, ALEX BHAGATRAM, ALICIA TAYLOR, SORAYA LODIN, TEYANI CISNEROS, and MICHAEL WEBSTER; individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC; MACY'S, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage and hour laws. The action stems from the Defendants' policies and practices of: (1) failing to compensate for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (3) failing to pay overtime wages; (4) failing to authorize and permit lawful meal and rest periods, or premium wages in lieu thereof; (5) failing to provide true and accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failing to timely pay all wages due upon separation from employment; (7) failing to provide reimbursements for business expenditures; and (8) engaging in unfair business practices. The Collective members are people who are or who have been employed by the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt employees in the United States at any time within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class and Collective members work numerous uncompensated hours off-the-clock every week calling and texting with current or potential customers to facilitate sales, calling and texting with supervisors or coworkers about work-related subjects, and attending online conferences and/or trainings to learn about new products and work policies, says the suit. Plaintiff Ha Nguyen was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate from March 2019 to November 2021. The Plaintiff Alex Bhagatram was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate from March 2008 to the present. Bloomingdale is an American luxury department store chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com BLUE DIAMOND: Seeks March 10 Extension of Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to further extend its deadline to respond to the motion for class certification, filed by Plaintiff Willie Cummings, until March 10, 2023. The Plaintiff filed his certification motion on September 22, 2022 -- more than one month prior to BDG's deadline to respond to the Complaint, which was November 1, 2022. Under Local Rule 7.1(E), BDG's deadline to respond to the certification motion was October 6, 2022. On October 3, 2022, BDG moved to extend its time to respond to the certification motion until 30 days after the Court's decision on BDG's then forthcoming motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 21, 2022 the Court extended BDG's deadline to respond to the Certification Motion until November 30, 2022. On November 1, 2022, BDG moved to dismiss the Complaint in full on the grounds that the Plaintiff both lacks standing and has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. On November 9, 2022, in accordance with the Court's October 21, 2022 Order, BDG again moved to extend its time to respond to the certification motion until 30 days after the Court's decision on the Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, until April 30, 2023. On November 17, 2022, the Court granted in part BDG's motion to extend the deadline for its response to the certification motion, extending the deadline to the earlier of February 24, 2023 or thirty days after the motion to dismiss was decided. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff requested a new date for his deposition, February 24, 2023, which is the current deadline for BDG's opposition. Blue Diamond is an agricultural cooperative and marketing organization that specializes in California almonds. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YMXQWD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ardith Bronson, Esq. Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Rachael C. Kessler, Esq. Jason Kornmehl, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131-5341 Telephone: (305) 423-8562 E-mail: ardith.bronson@dlapiper.com colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com rachael.kessler@us.dlapiper.com jason.kornmehl@us.dlapiper.com BODY & POLE: Swain Parties' Settlement Bid Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON, REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order approving the parties' preliminary settlement motion and terminating the pending motion to certify class without prejudice. The Clerk's Office is directed to update the docket accordingly. Body & Pole is a private company. The company currently specializes in the Health, Wellness and Fitness area. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZjViz0 at no extra charge.[CC] BRIAN MELICKE MOORE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Offences ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Seyd, writing for North Shore News, reports that a retired North Vancouver teacher in his 80s who was recently charged with 12 sexual offences against boys is also facing a proposed class-action civil lawsuit filed by one of his former students on behalf of potential victims. North Vancouver RCMP announced that criminal charges were laid Feb. 15 against Brian Melicke Moore, 83, who taught at Upper Lynn Elementary in North Vancouver in the 1970s and 1980s. The charges involve allegations of sexual offences against 11 people, who were 11- and 12-year-old boys at the time. Moore taught Grade 6 at the North Vancouver school between 1970 and 1982. The civil lawsuit was filed in August in B.C. Supreme Court against Moore and the North Vancouver School District, around the same time the RCMP first went public with their investigation of the former teacher. In the lawsuit, the North Vancouver man who was a former student of Moore's says he was abused at the hands of his former Grade 6 teacher in incidents that he alleges often took place during outdoor school trips, including camping, water skiing and skiing trips. During a swimming excursion at Simon Fraser University, Moore instructed students to shower naked with him, the former student alleges in the lawsuit. Moore also instructed students to swim naked during camping trips, slept in tents with his students and climbed into his students' sleeping bags naked, documents filed in the civil lawsuit allege. During one overnight ski trip, the teacher also demonstrated masturbation on himself, the lawsuit alleges. He also provided driving lessons in his personal vehicle where students were instructed to sit on his lap, according to documents filed in the civil lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Moore groomed his victims by taking them to unfamiliar environments "where they were less familiar with what is appropriate" and fostered inappropriate relationships with students both inside and outside of school. The lawsuit also alleges Moore threatened students with reprisal if they reported him. The lawsuit also names the North Vancouver School District, alleging teachers and administrators at Upper Lynn Elementary saw behaviour that should have given them cause for concern. The school district also failed to adequately investigate reports received from students, parents and teachers, the lawsuit alleges. In doing so, the school district failed to take reasonable steps to protect students when they were vulnerable minors and abandoned its "duty of care" to them, the lawsuit alleges. None of the allegations in either the criminal or civil cases have been proven in court and Moore has not entered a plea to the criminal charges. In a statement provided to the North Shore News, the school district said it "recognizes teachers and staff who work with students are in a position of great trust" and acknowledged "a criminal charge of this nature is appropriately unsettling." The school district added Moore's employee file included no record of misconduct as an employee. "As his employment with the school district ended over 40 years ago, this situation is considered a matter for the RCMP," the statement read. The school district added it had "co-operated fully with the RCMP throughout their investigation." Moore was charged Feb. 15 with 10 counts of indecent assault on a male, one count of sexual touching of a child under 14 and one count of sexual assault. [GN] BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Duane Morris Discusses Ruling in FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that in 2022, corporate defendants aggressively asserted defenses based on personal jurisdiction to fracture collective actions in particular. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that each plaintiff in a mass action must demonstrate a basis for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant for purposes of adjudicating his or her claims, even if those claims are similar to the claims of other plaintiffs. Federal circuits, however, have disagreed on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in the collective action and class action context. Such a decision has the potential to curtail the forums in which the plaintiffs' bar may file class and collective actions against a corporate defendant and, in particular, could limit the forums where a plaintiff could bring a nationwide action to those where a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over the defendant (i.e., typically only the state where the company is organized and the state where it maintains its principle place of business). Given the potential of the defense to fracture nationwide suits, multiple defendants raised personal jurisdiction in 2022, and the number of federal circuits holding that Bristol-Myers applies to collective actions grew to three (the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits), with one circuit holding otherwise (the First Circuit). In Fischer, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., 42 F.4th 366 (3d Cir. 2022), the Third Circuit joined the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in concluding that Bristol-Myers requires a court to find personal jurisdiction over the claims of opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, brought suit against FedEx in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that FedEx misclassified her and other security specialists as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Two non-resident FedEx employees, who worked for FedEx in their home states, filed notices of consent to join the action. The district court held that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over FedEx with respect to their claims, and they filed a petition for interlocutory appeal. The Third Circuit granted the petition to resolve whether, in an FLSA collective action, where the district court lacks general personal jurisdiction over the defendant, all opt-in plaintiffs must demonstrate that the district court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant to resolve their claims. The Third Circuit recognized that the Sixth and Eighth Circuits had answered in the affirmative, holding that the claims of FLSA opt-in plaintiffs must arise out of or relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state, Id. at 370 (citing Canaday, et al. v. Anthem Cos., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir. 2021), and Vallone, et al. v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC, 9 F.4th 861 (8th Cir. 2021)), whereas the First Circuit had answered in the negative, holding that only the named plaintiffs must show that their claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state. Id. (citing Waters, et al. v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., 23 F.4th 84 (1st Cir. 2022)). The Third Circuit agreed with the former, holding that, like the out-of-state plaintiffs in Bristol-Myers, the opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions must satisfy the personal jurisdiction requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to join the suit by demonstrating general personal jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction. As to the former, the opt- ins could not establish general personal jurisdiction over FedEx because the company was incorporated in Delaware and had a principal place of business in Tennessee. As to the latter, the opt-ins could not establish specific jurisdiction because they lived and worked in New York and Maryland, respectively, and based their claims entirely on their treatment by FedEx in their home states. Id. at 383. During 2022, the parties in three of these cased filed petitions for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and requested that it address the question of personal jurisdiction in the context of collective actions. To date, the Supreme Court has denied two of the petitions, with the petition outstanding. Thus, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will resolve this issue in 2023, and corporate defendants can expect that personal jurisdiction will remain a powerful defense for facing collective actions outside of their home states. [GN] BROWN UNIVERSITY: Text Class Scheduling Order Entered in Soenen --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soenen, et al., v. Brown University, Case No. 1:21-cv-00325 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered a text class scheduling order: -- Any discovery on class certification June 2, 2023 shall be completed by: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum June 16, 2023 for Class Certification shall be filed on or before: -- The Defendant's objection, if any, June 30, 2023 shall be filed on or before: -- Reply by Plaintiffs shall be filed July 7, 2023 by: The nature of suit states civil rights violation. Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in Providence, Rhode Island.[CC] CANADA: Settles Drinking Water Class Action Suit for $8-Bil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Jan Murphy, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are on standby to help community members with processing claims as the deadline looms to receive compensation as part of an $8 billion class action settlement related to safe drinking water in First Nations communities. "We have a staff person we've hired to help community members with processing those claims," Chief R. Donald Maracle said in an interview, adding that Grant Barberstock can be reached at the band office by calling 613-396-3424 or on his cell at 613-438-6177. The compensation comes on the heels of a national class action lawsuit brought against the Attorney General of Canada by lawyers acting on behalf of Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation for Canada's failure to address prolonged drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves across the country. "In order to be eligible, you have be a status Indian residing on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory between the periods 2003 to 2021," Chief Maracle said, adding that to date some 672 applicants have filed in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Chief Maracle noted that the MBQ had been working with Indigenous Services Canada to address the drinking water issues prior to the court settlement, which was announced on July 30. "We've been working with the department for a number of years," Maracle said, rhyming off some of the work done to address the drinking water crisis. "We've had actually several water projects, the first one being the Bayshore Road construction in 1986-87. Then there was the Huron Brant South. Then we had the water looping project in 1998, which brought water down the Church lane along part of Old Highway 2 on the east end and then down to the Huron Brant North subdivision. Then, in 2014-15, we built the water treatment plant, and it was designed to be able to service the entire Reserve." Work continues on the projects as phases 3 and 4 are expected to be completed in 2023, but there is much work remaining to be done, Maracle noted. "Approximately 30 km of road remains unserviced," he said. "Approximately 400 homes remain without access to piped water supply." The Covid-19 pandemic impacted progress, Maracle said. "Our staff has been working very diligently with the contractors and engineers to oversee that, to get things moving," he said. "Phase 3 of the project was severely impacted with the pandemic and supply line issues that were occurring at the time. (Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations) Marc Miller was able to provide an extra $10 million to make that project move ahead. It just demonstrates the commitment that the government has to ending boiled water advisories on First Nations." Chief Maracle acknowledged the positive working relationship the BMQ currently have with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's governing Liberals. "Currently, we have a government that's committed to resolving this. I'm very happy about that," Maracle said, adding that the court action ensures the work will continue. "There is an ongoing obligation from the court action for the government to work with us to achieve safe drinking water in our communities." Along with the compensation as a result of the lawsuit, Canada has committed to creating a First Nations economic and cultural restoration fund, a renewed commitment to lifting all long-term drinking water advisories, the modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation and the creation of federal drinking water legislation. "Everything has to be worked at to achieve success," Chief Maracle said when asked about the juggling of many ongoing projects on the Reserve. "It's not going to fall out the sky on its own. There's a lot of leg work, a lot of lobby work that has to be done . . . and our staff also have to do a lot of the technical work with our engineers to get the projects up and ready." Chief Maracle praised his staff for its commitment to the many projects being undertaken. "There can be very busy times that we'll work the day and into the night. There's a heavy workload here, but we couldn't achieve this without a dedicated staff," he said. "It takes a dedicated team to make these things happen. You need a good working relationship with your funding partner and we have that." That said, safe drinking water remains a top priority, Maracle noted. "We want to get these projects completed as quickly as possible because the need for safe drinking water is urgent." Complete claims for compensation under the class action lawsuit can be emailed to firstnationswater@deloitte.ca; faxed to 647-738-5206 or mailed Drinking Water Class Action, Claims Administrator, C/O Deloitte, P.O. Box 160, Station Adelaide, Toronto, ON, M5C 2J2. Jan Murphy is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter who works out of the Belleville Intelligencer. The Local Journalism Initiative is funded by the Government of Canada. [GN] CARE ONE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Implement COVID-19 Guidelines ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACY PETTUS as the personal representative of DESHON KIRBY, deceased, et al. v. CARE ONE AT HOLMDEL; CARE ONE AT EAST BRUNSWICK; CARE ONE AT THE HIGHLANDS, CARE ONE AT WELLINGTON; CARE ONE ANCILLARY HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. BER-L-000885-23 (N.J. Super., Feb. 15, 2023) is a class action on behalf of all persons that, on or after January 1, 2020, through the present, were residents and/or patients of the Defendants Care One at Holmdel, Care One at Brunswick, Care One at the Highlands, Care One at Wellington, and Care One Ancillary Holdings, LLC, and who contracted and died as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak at those facilities. The Plaintiffs include GLORIA MILLER as the personal representative of ARTHUR MILLER, deceased, GIOVANNA CALDARELLA as the personal representative of ANTONINO CALDARELLA, deceased, LOLITA ROBERTS as the personal representative of GEORGE E. MARTIN, deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 13, 2020, the Defendants' facilities, all part of the Care One nursing home network, failed to implement the CMS guidelines which were issued in the memorandum entitled "Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes." Before, on, and after March 30, 2020, and despite having knowledge of COVID-19 positive staff, residents and COVID-19 related deaths, the Defendants' facilities failed to isolate those individuals from the Plaintiffs'-Decedents and/or failed to isolate the Plaintiffs'-Decedents. On March 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs'-Decedents physically presented with COVID-19 symptoms, including respiratory and flu like symptoms. As a consequence of Defendants' failures in their regard, Antonino Caldarella, resident of CARE ONE AT HOLMDEL, died on January 27, 2021, from COVID-19, Arthur Miller, resident of CARE AT EAST BRUNSWICK, died on April 26, 2020, from COVID-19, Deshon Kirby, resident of CARE ONE AT THE HIGHLANDS, died on April 15, 2020, from COVID-19, and George Martin, resident of CARE ONE AT WELLINGTON, died on April 7, 2021, from COVID-19, the lawsuit contends. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'-Decedents' deaths and that of the other residents/patients were a direct result of the Defendants' decisions and push to unnecessarily take an influx of COVID-19 patients, despite being unprepared and unequipped to do so safely, as well as the Defendants' failures to take measures to protect them at the facilities from the COVID-19 virus, the suit further asserts. CareOne at Holmdel is a nursing home in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: Nfarnolo@napolilaw.com CENTRASTATE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack -------------------------------------------------------------- HIPAA Journal reports that a lawsuit has been filed against Freehold Township, NJ-based CentraState Healthcare System over its December 2022 ransomware attack, a few days after the health system started sending notification letters to around 617,000 affected patients. The lawsuit alleges CentraState Medical Center was negligent for failing to implement adequate and reasonable safeguards to protect the sensitive data of its patients. On February 10, 2023, CentraState confirmed it had suffered a ransomware attack that disrupted its computer systems. The health system detected the attack on December 29, 2022, blocked the unauthorized access, and launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. CentraState confirmed that the hackers gained access to part of its systems that contained an archived database, and stole that database. The database included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical record numbers, and patient account numbers. Complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services were offered to individuals who had their Social Security number exposed. On February 20, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in the Monmouth County Superior Court by attorney Benjamin Johns, which named Rita Sorrentino-Poggi of Manalapan as the plaintiff. Sorrentino-Poggi was notified on February 8, 2023, that some of her information was stolen by the hackers. The lawsuit alleges that as a direct result CentraState Medical Center's failure to protect patient data, the plaintiff's and class members' sensitive data is now in the hands of the hackers and, potentially, other hostile individuals. As such, the plaintiff and similarly situated victims of the data breach now face an increased risk of identity theft and fraud and will have to spend a significant amount of time and money protecting themselves against identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief, including an order from the courts for CentraState to enhance data security to prevent similar attacks and data breaches in the future. [GN] CG CONSULTING: Court Denies Bid for Leave to File Amended Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA OUSLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CG CONSULTING, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file amended motion to certify a Rule 23 Class and second motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to allow an additional opportunity to define a class, but fail to show the necessary good cause to warrant such a chance. The Plaintiffs urge they could "not have possibly addressed the Court's reasoning until after review of the December 16, 2022 Opinion and Order." But it is not the Court's encumbrance to ensure a class definition satisfies Rule 23's requirements; it is Plaintiffs'. Were the Court to grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file out of time, it would set a precedent that plaintiffs' counsel for a putative class could simply "try on" a variety of class definitions until one "fits." This would result in protracted litigation and undercut the purpose of a Rule 16 scheduling order -- to keep litigation and the Court's docket moving efficiently and effectively. The Defendants would be prejudiced by a grant of leave because it would unduly extend the course of the litigation and cause them to incur additional legal fees to re-oppose motions already filed and briefed once. Moreover, the parties have received multiple extensions throughout the course of the litigation. This is a wage and hour Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant CG Consulting, LLC, a limited liability company that owns and operates bars and restaurants in the adult entertainment industry. The Plaintiff Alicia Ousley was a bartender. The Plaintiffs Michael Starkey and Joshua Votaw were floor hosts. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IKFyjo at no extra charge.[CC] CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lakeenya Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Lakeenya class action suit in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. This class action lawsuit was filed against the Company on December 10, 2021, in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California alleging certain violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The Company firmly maintain that the allegations are without merit and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. Cinemark Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. CORELOGIC CREDCO: Extension of Class Status Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLENE STEINBERG, v. CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00498-H-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Parties' deadlines, as detailed below: On August 26, 2022, the Court entered the Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. In the Scheduling Order, the Court set the deadline for the Parties' class certification expert disclosures as February 17, 2023, with rebuttal class certification expert disclosures due by March 20, 2023. Also in the Order, the Court set the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification as May 18, 2023, Defendant's opposition for June 19,2023, and the reply for July 19, 2023. The Parties have been engaged in the exchange of written discovery and document productions. They have also engaged in negotiations as to the scope of data to be produced by Defendant, which has been complicated as Defendant has worked to overcome various technical issues in working with the data sets. Those discussions have been ongoing, and Defendant has recently produced some data to the Plaintiff's counsel, which counsel are reviewing for sufficiency. In light of the recent production of data, Plaintiff's experts believe that they will need additional time to perform an analysis and opine on the same in time for the current February 17, 2023 deadline. Thus, the Parties agree that, to provide time for the class certification experts to review the forthcoming data and provide fulsome analysis and reports, the deadline for opening class certification expert disclosures should be extended until 26 April 28, 2023. Rebuttal disclosures shall then be due by May 31, 2023. The Parties further agree that Plaintiff's deadline for class certification 2 be extended from May 15, 2023 to June 16, 2023 with Defendant's response due July 18, and Plaintiff's reply due August 18. This is the Parties' first request to extend these deadlines and such extension will not effect any other currently set deadlines in the case schedule. CoreLogic Credco is a provider of merged and specialized credit reports. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lVscaM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Rios, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: srios@bm.net emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Casey Nash, Esq. Andrew Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd., Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica Lohr, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2092 Telephone: (858) 509-6000 Facsimile: (858) 509-6040 E-mail: jessica.lohr@troutman.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Discovery Cutoff Deadline Extension Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA RAMIREZ, et al., v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01017-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting the BNBD's amended motion to withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Dennis; 2. relieving BNBD as counsel of record for the Plaintiff Dennis effective upon the filing of proof of service of the Memorandum and Order on Dennis at his last known address: LaJuan Dennis 3336 Broken Branch Ct., Apt. 109 Sacramento, CA 95834 3. directing al communications to Dennis, now acting pro se in the case, as the contact information listed above unless and until he retains new counsel of record; 4. granting LFJ's motion to withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Ramirez; 5. relieving LFJ as counsel of record for the Plaintiff Ramirez effective upon the filing of proof of service of the Memorandum and Order on Ramirez at her last known address: Claudia Ramirez 3825 Littlerock Dr. No. 41 Antelope, CA 95843 6. directing all communications to Ramirez, now acting pro se in the case; and 7. denying the Moving Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Order Extending the Discovery Cutoff Deadline. Cornerstone Building is the manufacturer of exterior building products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I896py at no extra charge.[CC] CSX TRANS: Bid to Set Class Cert Briefing Sched in Edwards OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimmy Edwards, et al., V. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-00169-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order that: 1. CSXT's motion to expedite consideration of its motion to postpone class certification proceedings pending resolution of summary judgment motion, or, in the alternative, to set class certification briefing schedule is granted; and 2. Further briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be held in abeyance while the Court considers CSXT's motion to postpone CSX provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41qVZJ4 at no extra charge.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Court Modifies Subpoena to Encompass Purchases Only ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HASEMANN & WENDY MANEMEIT, v. CVS PHARMACY INC., Case No. 1:19-mc-02518-EK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order modifying the subpoena to encompass only purchases during the class period. Nonetheless, the Court does find that the subpoena, as currently worded, is overbroad in one respect. CVS is directed to produce to Petitioners' counsel the following information: A machine-readable list of the names, addresses, and email addresses of all individuals whose addresses are in the United States and who, between October 10, 2011, and April 23, 2016, purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula. CVS shall provide this information to Petitioners no later than 14 days after the issuance of this order. The dispute arises out of a class action now pending before this Court in Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co., No. 15-CV- 2995, and cases consolidated with it for pretrial purposes. Petitioners are the class representatives in that action, in which they allege that Gerber engaged in false and deceptive advertising in marketing its Good Start Gentle infant formula. Petitioners move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i) for an order compelling CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a nonparty to the class action, to disclose names, addresses, and email addresses of certain CVS customers who purchased the Good Start formula. The Petitioners seek to enforce their subpoena for production of: A machine-readable list of the names, addresses and email addresses of all individuals whose addresses are in the United States and who, between May 15, 2011, and the present, purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula. CVS Pharmacy distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kipUCb at no extra charge.[CC] DAPPER LABS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over NBA Top Shot NFTs Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Wagner, writing for Blockworks, reports that a federal judge has denied Dapper Labs' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming its NBA Top Shot NFTs are securities. Dapper Labs, the issuer behind the popular NFT collection announced in 2019, will have to continue with the suit, US District Judge Victor Marreo ruled, per the court filing. The class action suit, filed in 2021, claims the "moments" collection -- digital video clips of highlights from NBA games -- are securities and that by issuing them, Dapper Labs violated the law. "An NFT constitutes an investment contract under Howey," Marreo wrote in the ruling, citing the Howey Test, used to determine whether an asset is a security under US law. In its motion to dismiss, Dapper Labs alleged the plaintiffs used Dapper's native FLOW token to "confuse" the court. The NBA moments and FLOW tokens are separate entities, Dapper Labs added. Marreo agreed that while FLOW and NBA moments are two separate products, Dapper "ignores that FLOW is part of the economic realities of the investment scheme in dispute." The case, if it makes it to trial, has the potential to set a precedent for NFTs and securities laws. The filing comes as crypto classification and ongoing battles with the SEC heat up. Exchange Kraken recently settled for $30 million and agreed to discontinue its staking product after the SEC filing claimed it had offered an unregistered security. In settlement cases, which could be the end result of this class action against Dapper Labs, it is important to remember that no precedent is set, according to Seth Hertlein, Ledger's global head of policy. "The settlement did not create any new rules or law in the United States, and it's not binding on anyone besides Kraken, who agreed to it," Hertlein said during a Twitter Spaces with Blockworks. "The scope is actually quite limited." [GN] DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- Deloitte Management Services LP and Deloitte & Touche LLP and the representative plaintiff have agreed to settle a class action commenced in 2015, on behalf of individuals who performed document review or e-discovery services at Deloitte pursuant to an independent contractor agreement, alleging among other things, that the document reviewers should, in law, have been classified as employees of the Defendants and not as independent contractors. Without any admissions of liability, the settlement provides that the Defendants will pay an all-inclusive sum of $2.4 million to settle the class members' claims and to also pay legal fees and the cost of distributing the settlement funds. The settlement was approved by the Ontario Superior Court on February 16, 2023. The statement of claim CV-15-00523524-00CP and more information about the action and the settlement is available at https://www.monkhouselaw.com/deloitte-document-reviewer-class-action/. MAKE A CLAIM BY MAY 18, 2023 To make a claim, class members should fill out the claim form and send it to deloitte.classaction@monhouselaw.com together with a void cheque and id by May 18, 2023. About Toronto-based Monkhouse Law: We're an employment law firm specializing in wrongful dismissal, human rights law, employment insurance claims, human resources law, and denied long-term disability claims and we also have a strong track record fighting Class Action cases for employees. For further information: Alexandra Monkhouse, Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers, alexandra@monkhouselaw.com. Alexandra Monkhouse Monkhouse Law +1 416-907-9249 ext. 211 Alexandra Monkhouse Monkhouse Law +1 416-907-9249 [GN] DISTRICT 5: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Lopez -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ILIANA LOPEZ, v. DISTRICT 5 BOUTIQUE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00908-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- The 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. -- 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. District 5 is a luxury dress shop featuring the finest dresses and gowns from designers around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lUm1nz at no extra charge.[CC] DOCCS: Court OK's Burrell in Forma Pauperis Application -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AKO K. BURRELL, et al., v. DOCCS, et al., Case No. 9:22-cv-00702-DNH-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. The Clerk provide the Superintendent of the facility, designated by the plaintiff as his current location, with a copy of plaintiff's Inmate Authorization, and notify the official that this action has been filed and that the plaintiff is required to pay the Northern District of New York the statutory filing fee of $350.00 in installments, over time, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915. The Clerk of the Court provide a copy of plaintiff's Inmate Authorization to the Financial Deputy of the Clerk's Office. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the docket and terminate "similarly situated plaintiffs" as plaintiffs in this action. The following claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(b): (1) plaintiff's section 1983 claims for monetary damages against DOCCS and Central Office; (2) plaintiff's claims related to violations of DOCCS Directives; and (3) plaintiff's constitutional claims related to the grievance process. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims; (2) Eighth Amendment claims related to plaintiff's hunger strike; (3) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims; (4) supervisory claims; (5) First Amendment free exercise claims; (6) conspiracy claims; and (7) state law claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1IhsX at no extra charge.[CC] DOCTORS REPORTING: Phase 1 Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CHAVEZ, v. DOCTORS REPORTING SERVICE OF TEXAS INC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02623-M (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barbara M.G.Lynn entered a Phase 1 scheduling order regarding class certification: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 26, the local civil rules of this Court (except as modified herein), the Court's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, and in consideration of any appropriate proposal submitted by the parties, the Court enters this Scheduling Order. Unless otherwise ordered or specified herein, all limitations and requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, must be observed. The following deadlines shall apply during Phase 1, which will last through the Court's ruling on class certification and dispositive motions: Event Deadline Deadline to Join Parties April 24, 2023 Deadline to Amend Pleadings April 24, 2023 Initial Designation of Experts September 29, 2023 Designation of Rebuttal Experts October 30, 2023 Mediation Deadline December 15, 2023 Daubert Motions December 15, 2023 Close of Discovery December 15, 2023 Dispositive Motions January 31, 2024 Motion for Class Certification January 31, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EqVhRZ at no extra charge.[CC] EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Has Until March 3 to File Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time: -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of class certification and to serve any expert rebuttal reports in support of same is extended by 14 days to March 3, 2023. -- All other deadlines set forth in the Order of December 2, 2022, remain in effect. Emory University is a private research university in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KyMZLW at no extra charge.[CC] EMPIRE ONE: Charges Inaccurate Overdraft Fees, Kuzub Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA KUZUB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00149 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023) challenges the Defendant's practice of charging overdraft fees. The Plaintiff sues the Defendant over: -- the improper assessment and collection of $35.00 OD Fee on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds, and -- multiple insufficient funds fees (NSF Fee) or an OD Fee after one or more NSF Fees was assessed on an item (Multiple Fees); and violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The Plaintiff also alleges that because the Defendant provided inaccurate and untruthful overdraft information to Plaintiff and the Classes regarding the overdraft practice, under Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Defendant was not authorized to assess OD Fees to consumers for debit card and non-recurring debit card charges. However, Defendant did charge its customers overdraft fees for ATM and debit card charges. Through the imposition of these fees, the Defendant has made substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to turn its members' financial struggles into revenue. The Plaintiff, like thousands of others, has fallen victim to Defendant's fee revenue maximization scheme, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an Amherst, New York citizen and has maintained a checking account with the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielgold.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com EVERBRIDGE INC: Bid to Dismiss Ellertson Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Everbridge 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 24, 2023, that the Company's motion to dismiss the Ellertson class suit is still pending. In April 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Jaime Ellertson, Patrick Brickley, and David Meredith (the Company's former Chief Executive Officer) by Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd, Sylebra Capital Parc Master Fund, and Sylebra Capital Menlo Master Fund (collectively, "Sylebra"). In September 2022, Sylebra filed an amended and restated complaint. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising out of purported misrepresentations in the information we provided to investors regarding its organic and inorganic revenue growth and the status of integrating acquisitions, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of its stock during the period November 4, 2019 to February 24, 2022. The Company isn't able to estimate the amount of the loss allegedly suffered by members of the putative class or the amount of legal costs and internal efforts associated with defending the Company and its officers and directors. The Company believed that the allegations and claims made in this lawsuit are wholly without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously. In October 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds, including failure to plead any actionable misstatement or omission, failure to establish scienter, and failure to meet the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and other applicable law. Everbridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVBG), is a global software company. The Company provides enterprise software applications that automate and accelerate organizations' operational response to critical events in order to keep people safe and businesses running. During public safety threats, such as active shooter situations, terrorist attacks or severe weather conditions, as well as critical business events, such as information technology (IT) outages, cyber-attacks or other incidents, such as product recalls or supply-chain interruptions, its Software as a Service (SaaS)-based platform enables its customers to aggregate and assess threat data, locate people at risk and responders able to assist, automate the execution of pre-defined communications processes, and track progress on executing response plans. Its platform provides organizations with the ability to send and receive notifications based on the last known locations of people, not just based on a static office or home address. The Company is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. EZRIRX LLC: Seeks to Strike Class Claims in Boone's TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOONE's PHARMACY, INC., v. EZRIRX LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00375-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; and -- striking class allegations or denying class certification. Boone's Pharmacy filed this putative class action alleging that Defendant EzriRx sent it two faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). EzriRx submits separate briefs in support of each motion. It also submits this document to summarize the motions and explain their interaction. EzriRx moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint because its factual allegations demonstrate that Plaintiff's employee Sophie confirmed its fax number after being informed that EzriRx wished to send marketing materials by fax. Under binding Eleventh Circuit authority, Sophie's confirmation of Plaintiff's fax number in these circumstances constitutes "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements. As such, the Court should grant the Motion and dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. Ezrirx is doing business in drugstore industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IPwoBX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Nathan D. Chapman, Esq. Michael S. Qin, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com nchapman@kcozlaw.com mqin@kcozlaw.com FERMENTED SCIENCES: Court Selects ADR Process in Starratt Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Starratt and Thomas Simmons v. Fermented Sciences, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03895-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order selecting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process as follows: -- The parties are discussing settlement and will agree to a mediator. -- The parties agree to hold the ADR session by other requested deadline: 60 days from a decision on a motion for class certification. -- Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process: Fermented Sciences produces non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers a variety of organic and probiotic tea products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZfahKB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP Telephone: (415) 639-9090 E-mail: hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: William Cole, Esq. AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN 515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7206 Facsimile: (312) 884-7352 E-mail: william@amintalati.com FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliger, et al., v. Flywheel Energy Production, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146 (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of class notice. The parties agree that these Motions are moot given that Plaintiffs intend to file new class-certification motions in the near future. The nature of suit states other contract. Flywheel operates as an oil and gas exploration and production company.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Bid for Leave to Deny Class Cert. OK'd in Tucker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tucker v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00430 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting the motion for leave to deny class certification and strike class allegations by Defendant Ford Motor Company. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Brief -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COUNTS, et al., individually, and on behalf of THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-12541-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), General Motors moves the Court for leave to file a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Class Certification And Appointment Of Class Representatives And Class Counsel. On August 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion For class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. After a period during which briefing was stayed, on January 17, 2023, GM filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. In their reply, the Plaintiffs raised new arguments and cited new cases on issues of materiality, reliance, and causation, included and cited new exhibits related to lawsuits against Mercedes-Benz and Fiat Chrysler. General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XZiuld at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Renee D. Smith Richard C. Godfrey Jeffrey S. Bramson KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: rdsmith@kirkland.com rgodfrey@kirkland.com jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com - and - Michael P. Cooney DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-6955 E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com GO-STAFF INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Stubblefield Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRYCE STUBBLEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. GO-STAFF, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV03781 (Cal. Super., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. This is only a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699 et seq., on behalf of the Representative Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated who worked for the Defendants in their California locations as non-exempt, hourly employees for: (i) failure to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code sections 226, 432, and 1198.5; (ii) failure to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code sections 510 and the applicable Wage Orders; (iii) failure to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), and the applicable Wage Orders; (iv) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections 1182.2, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and the applicable Wage Orders; (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d), 1198, and the applicable Wage Orders; (vi) failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11050(5) (A); (vii) failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations 11050(4)(C); (viii) failure to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code section 204; (ix) failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; (x) failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses in violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; (xi) failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code section 246; and (xii) employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code section 5 558(a). Accordingly, the Defendants routinely required the Representative Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees to perform work tasks before and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or during off-the-clock meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks. As a consequence, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Representative Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees all of the wages to which they were entitled, says the suit. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Recruiter/Dispatcher on April 2017. Go-Staff is a family owned and operated full-service staffing company serving all of Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin P. Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com GPB HOLDINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in DeLuca Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA DELUCA, DREW R. NAYLOR, and PEGGY ROLLO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited partners, v. GPB HOLDINGS, LP, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10498-LAK-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Proposed Date Auditor Defendants' answers or Mar. 6. 2023 motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint: Opposition to a motion to dismiss or Apr. 7, 2023 reply to an answer: Replies in support of motions to Apr. 28, 2023 dismiss: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Jul. 28, 2023 Certification and Plaintiffs' disclosure of class certification expert reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): Plaintiffs' Class Certification Oct. 20, 2023 Reply Brief: Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve May 30, 2024 expert rebuttal reports: Oppositions to Motions for Summary Aug. 29, 2024 Judgment: A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z2VlzD at no extra charge.[CC] H.I.S. GUAM: Loses Bid to Dismiss Igarashi Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S. GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court finds that the Complaint contained particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of Plaintiff's standing. That on May 30, 2020, Defendant's employees received a notice informing them of a "furlough status" effective May 31, 2020. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff and the proposed class members have Article III standing. In Defendant's motion to strike under Rule 12(f), which Defendant then converted to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendant moves the court to entertain the class certification issue given that Plaintiff has yet to file a class certification motion under Rule 23. On September 16, 2021, the Plaintiff Igarashi filed the instant action as a class action. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant H.I.S. Guam, Inc., former employer of Plaintiff, violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), when the Plaintiff and other "affected employees" were terminated without advanced notice on or about May 31, 2020. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/415NcvX at no extra charge.[CC] HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Williams Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HALSTED FINANCIAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:23-cv-01224 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023) is a state-wide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of herself and all New York consumers and their successors in interest, who the Defendants collected or attempted to collect a debt from, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At some time prior to October 10, 2022, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. (HSBC). The Plaintiff incurred the HSBC obligation by obtaining goods and services, which were primarily for personal, family and household purposes. On or before October 10, 2022, HSBC directly or through an agent, referred the HSBC obligation to HALSTED for the purpose of collections. Accordingly, it is Defendants' policy and practice to collect or attempt to collect debts, which violate the FDCPA, by inter alia: a) Communicating with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address; b) Communicating further with a consumer when the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer; and c) Using false, deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a debt. The Class is initially defined as: "All New York consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from HALSTED, which included the alleged conduct and practices." The Defendants have made collection attempts against at least 50 natural persons in the State of New York within one year of this Complaint. Halsted is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com bwolf@legaljones.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD SANGER v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 602922/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the New York Labor Law by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis, seeking liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State over the last six years. According to the complaint, more than 25% of the Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Harbor Freight included manual labor, including lifting and pushing merchandise, supplies, and other materials weighing up to 50 pounds, climbing up and down ladders, operating a forklift, receiving and unloading deliveries, maneuvering inventory between and around warehouse areas, organizing and stocking merchandise, and assisting with cleaning responsibilities. The Plaintiff was paid every other week during the entirety of his employment with the Defendant. Thus, for half of each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that he was temporarily deprived of money owed to him, and she could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully his, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse supervisor from 2016 to 2018 at a Harbor Freight store located in Huntington Station, New York. Harbor Freight operates a chain of tool and equipment retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages, Villarin Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ARIANE ROSE VILLARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00097-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly-situated employees overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek and for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant CommuniCare allegedly recruits trained nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere, petitioning them through the immigrant visa sponsorship process, bringing them to the United States, and selling their labor to healthcare facility-clients. CommuniCare profits by charging healthcare facility-clients more for healthcare workers' labor than it pays the workers in wages and benefits. At work, the Plaintiff was required to work under dangerous and unsafe conditions, sometimes caring for as many as forty (40) patients at a time. This patient load meant that the Plaintiff rarely took a break and ran constantly from one patient to the next, unable to take the time she believed was necessary to provide patients with adequate care, the suit contends. The lack of proper orientation and job training, coupled with the unreasonable daily RN-patient ratio, made the Plaintiff distressed and anxious about the safety and health of her patients and the maintenance of her nursing license. The Plaintiff believed that the daily unsafe work conditions and environment jeopardized her license and the lives of her patients, added the suit. At all times relevant, the Plaintiff typically reported earlier than the start of her work-shift and extended her hours beyond the end of her work-shift to be able to accept or to endorse turn-over of care from the previous or to the incoming nurse on duty. The Plaintiff also seeks (i) for compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; (ii) for treble compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; (iii) a declaration that the Repayment Provision is unenforceable under the TVPA, the FLSA, and Ohio law; (iv) an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by the FLSA, the TVPA and RICO; and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Ariane Rose Villarin is a Registered Nurse who was formerly employed by the Defendant. She is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines and a legal permanent resident of the United States. Health Care is a labor recruiter and staffing company that hires registered nurses primarily from the Philippines to work in its healthcare facility-clients all over the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ghassan M. Shihab, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF SHIHAB & ASSOCIATES, CO., LPA 65 East State Street, Suite 1550 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (877) 479-4872 E-mail: gus@shihab.law - and - Felix Q. Vinluan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FELIX VINLUAN 6910 Roosevelt Avenue, 2 nd Floor Woodside, NY 11377 Telephone: (718) 478-4488 E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com - and - Magen E. Kellam, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MAGEN E. KELLAM, P.A. 808 Wiggins Pass Road, Suite 204 Naples, FL 34110 Telephone: (239) 260-4622 E-mail: magenk@kellamlegal.com HEALTH RECOVERY: Frechette Seeks More Time to File Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiana Frechette, et al., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Health Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending time of 10 days in which to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification. Per Local Rule 7.2, Plaintiffs' Reply is presently due on February 13, 2023. Due to a previously scheduled vacation, the length of Defendant's Response Brief, and Plaintiffs' Counsels' caseload, Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of time until February 23, 2023 in which to file their Reply Brief. Prior to making this request, Counsel for Plaintiffs contacted Counsel for Defendant who indicated that Defendant has no opposition to the requested extension. Health Recovery Services offers medication assisted treatment to those who need help with alcohol and drug addiction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41dRYHL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HEIDI WASHINGTON: Boussum Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK A. BOUSSUM et al., Plaintiffs, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON et al.,Case No. 1:22-cv-12232-TLL-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order denying motion for reconsideration, dismissing case without prejudice, and denying certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. -- the case is prohibited from being reinstated to the district court's active docket -- even if Plaintiffs pay the filing fees. -- the Plaintiffs are denied a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This is a final order and closes the case, the Court says. Although Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they failed to provide the required form that authorizes withdrawal of their funds. Nor have they paid the required fees. Nor have they requested another 30-day extension. Therefore, under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court is now required to "presume that the prisoner is not a pauper," to "assess the inmate the full amount of fees," and to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint "for want of prosecution." A group of disabled inmates have filed a pro se class action alleging numerous federal claims and seeking to be represented by an inmate who purports to be a paralegal. The case was stayed for three months to seek pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs because prison inmates may not represent each other in federal lawsuits. The Plaintiffs are prisoners held in a "Medically Frail Housing [MFH] Unit" at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan. The Plaintiffs have various disabilities and examples of their complaints include a lack of medical staff, missing handrails near beds and in showers requiring mobility-impaired prisoners to carry medical equipment up and down stairs, and the denial of the opportunity to participate in school, work, and recreation programming. The Plaintiff Boussum filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, newly complaining that Defendants are "double bunking" "regular" (i.e., nondisabled) prisoners in the MFH Unit, placing the "patients at risk to property theft, assaults, and/or death." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XSq2WN at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Wisconsin Over Car Thefts -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Huffman, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that after a surge in car thefts targeting some models made by Hyundai and Kia, the two automakers, owned by the same company, now face a class action lawsuit. Sebastian Cole of Milwaukee filed the complaint in Wisconsin's Eastern District Court, seeking class-action status. The suit says Cole was a car theft victim in July 2021 when his 2018 Kia Forte was stolen. The theft occurred amid a flurry of similar crimes that coincided with a viral TikTok video that showed how some Hyundai and Kia models could be easily stolen. The video targeted older models that did not feature immobilizers that are now standard on most cars and trucks, making them much harder to steal. Hyundai and Kia recently announced they have developed theft deterrent software for the millions of their vehicles that lack an immobilizer. Hyundai and Kia said they will provide it free of charge to vehicle owners. Cole says that doesn't do him much good now. The suit said his Kia was recovered a few days after it was stolen with a broken window and damage both inside and outside of the vehicle. The suit also said thieves stole several items that were inside the car. Other problems Owners of the affected models who weren't victims of thefts experienced other problems. In January CNN reported that both State Farm and Progressive have quietly decided they will no longer issue policies for some 2015 through 2019 Kia and Hyundai models because they were too easy to steal. An immobilizer is a powerful anti-theft feature because it prevents vehicles from being started without a chip-bearing key that transmits a code to the ignition. Kia and Hyundai were slow to add the feature to their entire fleet as other automakers have. The lawsuit is asking for unspecified damages, as well as injunctive relief. The lawsuit also seeks to represent other plaintiffs who purchased or leased a 2011-2022 Kia or a 2015-2022 Hyundai with an "insert-and-turn" key ignition system. [GN] ILLINOIS: Discovery Extended to May 2 in Kainz Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kainz, et al., v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order motion for extension of time to complete discovery as follows: -- Class discovery is extended to: May 2, 2023 -- Deadline to file Motion for class June 30, 2023 certification is extended to: The nature of suit states employment discrimination. The Illinois Department of Corrections is a multicultural agency deeply committed to ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion.[CC] ILLUSORY SYSTEMS: Faces Singh Suit Over Nomad Enterprise Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------- MANNU SINGH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ILLUSORY SYSTEMS, INC.; ARCHETYPE CRYPTO II, LLC; CONSENSYS SOFTWARE, INC.; CONNEXT LABS, INC.; COINBASE, INC.; OZONE NETWORKS, INC.; POLYCHAIN ALCHEMY, LLC; CIRCLE INTERNET FINANCIAL, LLC,, Case No. 1:23-cv-00183-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendants Coinbase, Inc., Ozone Networks, Inc., Polychain Alchemy, LLC, Circle Internet Financial LLC, and Archetype Crypto II, LLC conspired with the Nomad Defendants to bring the Nomad Enterprise into existence. The Plaintiff contends that before the Nomad Bridge began operations, the Conspirator Defendants agreed to provide funding, guidance, and advice to Illusory Systems in exchange for an ownership in Illusory Systems, which was created to solely participate in the operation of an illegal money-transmitting business. The Conspirator Defendants entered this agreement for the sole purpose of creating the Nomad Enterprise's illegal business. Through the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022, Illusory Systems worked to develop the software underlying the Nomad Bridge. The Conspirator Defendants agreed to provide Illusory Systems funding for the purpose of enabling Illusory Systems to create the Nomad Bridge and in exchange for a share of the profits from operating that bridge. The Conspirator Defendants knew that Illusory Systems' only business was the Nomad Bridge. On June 21, 2022, someone working on behalf of the Nomad Defendants introduced a routine update to the Replica contract. Perhaps negligently or perhaps maliciously, that person introduced a vulnerability in the Merkle tree function used by the Replica contract. On or around August 1, 2022, someone executed a few small fraudulent transactions on Nomad's Replica contracts, stealing a small amount of money. On August 2, 2022, approximately 105 ETH (units of Ethereum) were stolen from Singh during the hack, which was then worth $172,000. That same day, approximately $186 million worth of crypto assets were stolen from members of the class. Had the Nomad Enterprise sought a money-transmitting license to operate the bridge, it would almost certainly have been denied. The Nomad Defendants, thus, continuously violate 18 U.S.C. section 1960, which prohibits the operation of an unlicensed money-transmitting business, and 18 U.S.C. section 1343, which prohibits wire fraud. Both are predicate offenses under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, says the suit. Plaintiff Mannu Singh is a Canadian citizen residing in Montreal. Approximately $170,000 of his assets were lost or stolen by the Nomad Enterprise. Illusory Systems founded and created the Nomad Bridge and holds two of the five keys necessary to govern it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marisa R. De Feo, Esq. Michelle C. Streifthau-Livizos, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 E-mail: marisa.defeo@saul.com michelle.streifthau-livizos@saul.com - and - Charles Gerstein, Esq. Emily Gerrick, Esq. GERSTEIN H ARROW LLP 810 7th Street NE, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003 E-mail: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com Telephone: (202) 670-4809 INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Interactive Brokers Group 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues to defend a consumer class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff’s claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020. The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18, 2022. The motion is now fully briefed. The Court has not yet set a date for oral argument. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022. The Company's answer was filed on July 26, 2022. The Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. JABIL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Huynh Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STRONG HUYNH, v. JABIL INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07460-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss or strike. -- The motion to dismiss is denied, except that Huynh's reliance on Labor Code sections 204 and 206 in support of the First Cause of Action is DISMISSED with leave to amend, the reliance on Labor Code section 1174 in support of the Fifth Cause of Action is DISMISSED, and the Seventh Cause of Action under the UCL is DISMISSED with leave to amend regarding insufficiency of legal remedies. The motion to strike the class allegations is denied. -- A further amended complaint, if any, shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this Order. Jabil moves to dismiss plaintiff Strong Huynh's wage-and-hour causes of action and Huynh's derivative unlawful business practices cause of action for failure to state plausible claims to relief. Jabil also moves to strike Huynh's class allegations. Huynh asserts that Jabil committed the following unlawful practices: (1) failing to pay 1 employees all wages for all hours worked; (2) causing missed meal periods; (3) causing missed rest breaks; (4) failing to provide all wages due upon discharge; (5) failing to provide itemized 3 wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; and (6) failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses, including cell phone expenses. Jabil is an American worldwide manufacturing services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Imus2B at no extra charge.[CC] JACK HULLAND: Nine Affidavits Filed in Child Abuse Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Plonka, writing for Yukon News, reports that nine new affidavits have been filed detailing the use of "isolation cells" and physical restraints at Jack Hulland Elementary School. The affidavits were filed with an application to turn the lawsuit, which was initially filed by the guardians of two former students, into a class action representing all students who experienced holds, restraints or isolation between January 2002 and June 2022. The department of Education and the Jack Hulland school council are listed as defendants. A defence has not yet been filed, and the allegations have not been proven in court. The application claims the disciplinary measures amount to assault and battery, false imprisonment and negligence. A former superintendent alleges that child abuse occurred. Donna Miller-Fry was superintendent of Jack Hulland's catchment area for 16 months, from January 2021 to April 2022. She filed an affidavit to the court on Feb. 14. Miller-Fry describes becoming quickly acquainted with problems at the school. Within a week, the principal reported an education assistant "slamming [a child] down on a mat" in the Grove Street program portable. A workplace investigation was launched with the department's Student Support Services branch, who reported "grave concerns" that children were being harmed in school. Miller-Fry learned there was a long history of teachers restraining kids. She was told of the "Nest" or study hall, which was a classroom outfitted with four small cubicles and used to place children into solitary confinement, sometimes for hours at a time. Three months later, student support services told Miller-Fry they would no longer provide teachers with nonviolent crisis intervention training, as teachers seemed to needlessly favour the ninth module, which coaches on restraints as a last resort. "Their reasoning was that Jack Hulland staff were not interested in de-escalation," Miller-Fry said. Student support services said children were being permitted to escalate and then restrained or secluded. They observed increased physical intervention in classrooms after crisis training, with no evidence that parents were contacted or the situation debriefed according to protocol. "During this meeting, the [student support services] staff used the words ‘child abuse' many times," Miller-Fry said. Five new affidavits filed by former students and parents on Feb. 14 describe physical discipline dating back to 2005. One student recalled being carried by the limbs, suspended "like a flying squirrel" to the principal's office or study hall. She would frequently spend most of the school day in a study hall cubicle, which was so small she couldn't extend her arms without touching a wall. She recounts asking to call her mom and go home. Her request was refused, so she tried to escape by climbing over the top divider. She says butter was then smeared on the top, so it was too slippery to escape. Multiple affidavits describe the cubicles as poorly lit, measuring three-by-three feet and monitored by a security camera. A former school counsellor alleged that the doors opened outward, so they would be barricaded with chairs. One former student said he would often hear other children "scream and bang on the walls of their cells" while in study hall. The former counsellor recalls a student breaking a window, while another scraped the walls with a fork provided to eat his lunch in isolation. Another student who claims holds and isolation were used on her at the school said she dropped out after leaving Jack Hulland and has no plans to complete her diploma. In her affidavit, she describes suicidal thoughts beginning in Grade 5 and persistent nightmares for several years afterwards, as well as experiencing "immense fear and anxiety" in school or office settings. The nine new affidavits include five from Jack Hulland parents. Multiple parents said they demanded that the school stop using holds and isolation, but were ignored. In several cases, parents said the severity of the situation was discovered years later, as kids didn't want to admit they were getting into trouble at school at the time. Parents also reported a decline in their kids' emotional regulation and behaviour. One parent alleged that her child became increasingly erratic and aggressive over seven years at Jack Hulland, eventually attempting suicide on school grounds. After leaving the school that year, they were hospitalized twice "due to mental breakdowns" and admitted to care outside the territory. Another parent said she is still fighting to retrieve the Workplace Risk Assessments (WRAs) that detail incidents involving her child at Jack Hulland. She says the principal told her there are more than 100 in her child's file -- but several months of chasing the Education department for the file have been fruitless. In her affidavit, Miller-Fry describes her last six months of employment with the Education department. She was terminated in April 2022. Miller-Fry says she began hunting for documentation in early November 2021, and was pointed towards the WRAs. Most vaguely described using intervention training, but others recounted children being "dragged down hallways against their will" and physically restrained for long periods of time. She also heard that a student support services employee had attempted reporting the treatment several times. She reported the evidence to Ryan Sikkes, the assistant deputy minister of Education. Five days later, Sikkes assured her that Nicole Morgan, the deputy minister, "was fully aware" of what was happening. Miller-Fry says she submitted a report to RCMP that day. In January, police reported that more than 150 people had been interviewed as part of the ongoing investigation. The class action application will be heard by the Yukon Supreme Court in June. [GN] JD PALATINE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in Neuman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEUMAN v. JD PALATINE LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00820 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines, as follows: -- The new deadline to add new parties Feb. 14, 2023 and/or amend pleadings is: -- ADR shall be completed by: April 14, 2023 -- Fact discovery is due by: May 12, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosure June 13, 2023 deadline is: -- The Defendant's expert disclosure July 13, 2023 deadline is: -- All expert discovery, including Aug. 14, 2023 depositions, shall be completed by: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 13, 2023 certification is due by: -- The Defendant's opposition to Oct. 23, 2023 class certification is due by: -- The Plaintiff's reply is due by: Nov. 6, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Founded in 2009, JDP is a technology-enabled provider of background check, employment screening and adjacent services.[CC] JONES LANG: Fails to Pay Workers' Timely Wages, Vinas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- YINETTE VINAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01236 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the New York Labor Law by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis and demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State over the last six years prior to November 25, 2022. The members of the Class include Carpenter, Driver, Operating Engineer, Property Condition Assessor, Technical Project Coordinator, Property Associate, Janitorial Specialist, Custodian, Project Manager, Maintenance Technician, Maintenance Mechanic, Building Maintenance, HVAC Technician, Engineering Services Specialist, Assistant Facilities Manager, Small Jobs Manager, Facility Condition Advisor, Facilities Manager, Receptionist, Retail Concierge, Corporate Concierge, GMP Cleaner, Industrial Property Manager, Facilities Coordinator, Maintenance Coordinator/Supervisor, Project Coordinator, Electrician, Environmental Support Tech, Critical Systems Technician, Building Operations Specialist, Instrumentation & Controls Engineer, and other hourly-paid employees who perform similar physical tasks. Class members were required to spend more than 25% of their time engaged in physical labor in their employment with the Defendant. Accordingly, every day that said money was not allegedly paid to Plaintiff in a timely fashion, she lost the time value of that money. From December 2019 to April 2020, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a concierge worker. Jones Lang is one of the largest commercial real estate companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com - and - Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com KIA AMERICA: Sebastian Balks at Vehicles' Defective Security System ------------------------------------------------------------------- COLE SEBASTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00230-JPS (E.D. Wis., Feb. 17, 2023) seeks for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons and entities nationwide who purchased or leased 2011-2022 Kia vehicles or 2015-2022 Hyundai vehicles equipped with traditional "insert-and-turn" steel key ignition systems manufactured by the Defendant Kia America, Inc. or Hyundai Motor America. The Plaintiff contends that the Class Vehicles are not equipped with an "immobilizer" preventing them from being started unless a code is transmitted from the Vehicle's specific smart key. This security vulnerability makes the Vehicles incredibly easy to steal, allowing thieves to steal Vehicles by simply opening the steering columns and using a common USB charging cord or similar metal object to start the engine. According to Police, thieves have been exploiting a security flaw in Kia vehicles made since 2011 and Hyundai vehicles made since 2015. Yet Defendants failed to disclose and actively concealed the Defect from the public, and continue to manufacture, distribute, and sell the Vehicles without disclosing the Defect, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff brings this action for violation of relevant state consumer protection acts and for breach of implied warranties on behalf of a nationwide class and state classes of Vehicle lessees and owners. The Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Kia Forte in May 2019, from Russ Darrow Kia of Waukesha, 2141 E Moreland Blvd., Waukesha, WI 53186. The Plaintiff's Forte was stolen on the night of July 3, 2021, outside Plaintiff's friend's house at 1620 N Jackson St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee police recovered the Forte around 7:00 AM on July 4, 2021. At the time police recovered the Forte, the back right window was broken open and the car's ignition was "ripped out." This damage is consistent with the methods described above to circumvent the lax security systems of the subject vehicles. The Plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of the theft. Aside from the damage to the window and ignition and temporary loss of use of the Forte, the thieves also damaged the Forte's front right quarter panel and bumper, presumably when the thieves crashed the Forte. Further, the front right wheel was also out of alignment after the Forte was recovered, says the suit. Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, and vans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips NV disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the Company's motion to dismiss second amended complaint is due in the first quarter of 2023. On August 16, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed against the company, its former CEO and its CFO in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 causing damage to investors. On January 3, 2022, the lead plaintiff in the case filed its amended complaint seeking to represent individuals that purchased Philips shares between February 23, 2016, through November 12, 2021. Following the filing and briefing of the company's motion to dismiss in the first half of 2022, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 30, 2022, in which the alleged damage period was expanded to include certain share price declines that were allegedly based on disclosures made in 2022. The second amended complaint now focuses on share price declines that allegedly occurred as a result of various disclosures starting on April 26, 2021 through October 2022. The company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is due in the first quarter of 2023. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV is a health technology company focused on improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care. The Company offers products and services in diagnostic imaging, image-guided therapy, patient monitoring and health informatics, as well as in consumer health and home care. [BN] LITIGATION PRACTICE: Centralization of 11 Actions in Ohio Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order denying the defendant motion under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize eleven actions in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, in the Northern District of Ohio. The actions are pending in nine districts: "GRAHAM v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 2:22- 07915 (C.D. Cal.);" "RIZO v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 2:22- 01959 (E.D. Cal.);" "EATON v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 1:22- 00197 (N.D. Ga.);" "HAMMET v. DEBT RESOLUTION DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 1:22-04249v (N.D. Ga.);" "WILLIAMSON v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 5:22-07015 (D. Kan.);" "Beech v. Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv- 00057-HSO-BWR, Case No. (S.D. Miss.);" "SHEFFIELD, ET AL. v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:22-02093 (N.D. Ohio);" "KLAUS v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:22- 02094, Case No. (N.D. Ohio) "SCARLET v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:22- 00342 (S.D. Ohio);" "PRICE v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:22- 00707 (M.D. Pa.);" and "TOPP v. THE LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:22- 00814, (W.D. Tex.)." The Plaintiffs in five actions oppose centralization and plaintiffs in two additional actions oppose inclusion of their actions in any MDL. Alternatively, in the event of centralization, responding the plaintiffs variously propose the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of Mississippi, and the Central District of California as the transferee district. The Court said, "On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share allegations that LPG, a California law corporation, violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) or state statutory and common law, by falsely representing to clients that it would remove debts from their credit reports and improve their credit ratings, and by failing to comply with various other statutory requirements. While most of the actions will involve common issues of fact relating to whether LPG is a credit repair organization within the meaning of CROA, the involved claims appear to be relatively straightforward and each will involve distinct questions of fact regarding the plaintiffs’ individual financial circumstances, the representations made by LPG to each plaintiff, and whether and how LPG failed to provide the promised services." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41fiTmj at no extra charge.[CC] MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Dates ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul v. Margaritaville Enterprises LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00223 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. Margaritaville provides recreational services. The Company offers hotels and resorts, vacation club, casinos, cruises, and other related services. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[CC] MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Court OKs Extension of Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ, et al., v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00187 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson, III entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for class certification, in part. -- The Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due 1 days after the corporate representative deposition of MRHC. -- The Plaintiff shall have thirty days to file a reply, if any. The nature of suit states Real Property -- All Other Real Property. Marriott Ownership owns and operates resorts.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Jobe v. CMC ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Commuity Medical Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 05, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Jobe Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdMA6V at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Sheth v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheth v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04511 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Sheth Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IpLWLy at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Simkins v. Blackbaud --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins et al., v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Simkins Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xLONJE at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Sloane v. Blackbaud -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sloane v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04380 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Sloane Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lYWidN at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Zielinski v. Blackbaud ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Zielinski Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YS2OSd at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3055: Gutierrez Case Transferred to District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Gutierrez v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-05719 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 4, 2022) is transferred to the District of New Jersey by MDL Panel (MDL 3055). The Gutierrez Case has been consolidated in RE: SAMSUNG CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL Panel Chair is Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell. The MDL Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. The Defendant has its headquarters in New Jersey, where common witnesses and other evidence likely will be found. Six related actions are pending there, and all responding plaintiffs support this district as their first or second choice for the transferee venue. We assign this litigation to the Honorable Christine P. O'Hearn, a skilled jurist with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation, who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. We are confident she will steer this matter on a prudent course, the MDL Panel says. The Plaintiffs in all actions and common defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc., unanimously support centralization, with the disagreement limited to the appropriate transferee district. The Panel found that the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These putative class actions present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach of Samsung’s U.S. systems in or around July 2022 that allegedly compromised the personal information of millions of consumers using Samsung products and services. The common factual questions include: (1) Samsung’s data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Samsung knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Samsung Electronics manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products.[CC] A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IS96vj at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over Panoramic Sunroofs --------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Mercedes-Benz faces a proposed class action that alleges the panoramic sunroofs of certain vehicle models are prone to unexpectedly shatter, causing shards of glass to rain down on drivers and passengers. The 43-page lawsuit claims the automaker has been aware of the alleged defect for over a decade yet continues to sell and lease thousands of affected vehicles without warning consumers of the sudden and dangerous sunroof explosions that can occur under ordinary driving conditions, which drivers compare to the sound of a gunshot or bomb. The case contends that the shattering defect, allegedly caused by the company's failure to meet the "engineering challenges" associated with panoramic sunroofs, may be present in every Mercedes vehicle equipped with a panoramic sunroof, including the following models: 2011-present C-Class; 2014-present CLA-Class; 2011-present E-Class; 2011-present GL-Class/GLS-Class; 2011-present GLK-Class/GLC-Class; 2012-present M-Class/GLE Class; 2015-2017 Mercedes Maybach S-600; 2011-2012 R-Class; 2011-present S-Class; 2011-2019 SL-Class; and 2013-2020 SLK-Class/SLC-Class. The plaintiff, an Alabama consumer, says she purchased her 2019 Mercedes GLE43 Coupe in April 2021 based on the belief that her vehicle would be "safe, reliable, and free of defects" since neither an inspection performed by the Mercedes-Benz dealership, nor any information provided to her by a dealer representative, revealed the presence of a defect. However, the plaintiff claims her sunroof spontaneously shattered and sprayed glass over her and her fiancée while driving on the highway in February 2022. Even worse, the filing alleges, Mercedes systematically denies warranty coverage to vehicles that experienced the shattering issue, even though the automaker advertises that the basic warranty for new vehicles is for "4 years/50,000 Miles" and covers "any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in materials or workmanship." According to the complaint, consumers are forced to pay out-of-pocket to repair their shattered sunroofs because Mercedes concludes that the damages are the result of impact from roadway objects, such as rocks. The case argues that this explanation, which contradicts drivers' reports, is "incomplete, speculative and pretextual" given that the shattering events are caused by a "design, manufacturing and/or materials defect." The case contends that the issue partly stems from Mercedes' use of thinner, tempered glass to make its sunroofs, unlike other manufacturers that use laminated glass containing two panes fused by a sheet plastic, the filing contends. "Thinner glass, however, is very difficult to temper properly (especially when thicknesses are 4mm or less) as the compressive layers are thinner, increasing the probability for the glass to be compromised and result in catastrophic failure," the suit explains. "A scratch or flaw created during the manufacturing process can result in progressive damage such that once the damage creeps into the compressive layer the entire sunroof shatters." Per the complaint, the ceramic paint Mercedes applies to its panoramic sunroofs, which is the "black band" along the edge of the sunroof, is an adulterant that weakens the structural strength and integrity of the glass before it is tempered. The lawsuit says that since panoramic sunroofs are wider and longer than conventional sunroofs, they contain a larger ceramic paint area, making the glass weaker and, thus, more likely to explode. As a result, the sunroofs "are unable to withstand the stress -- pressures and flexing that the sunroof frame and vehicle demand -- present under ordinary driving conditions," the case states. "The consequence is that under ordinary driving conditions, and in some instances when the vehicle is parked or not otherwise in motion, the glass spontaneously shatters." The complaint charges that Mercedes, as an experienced manufacturer, has "known or should have known" of the defect since at least 2011 based on data collected from pre-sale durability testing. Beyond its testing results, a high volume of consumer complaints, replacement part sales and warranty claims, high sunroof failure rates, and analysis of customer surveys have alerted Mercedes to the defect, the suit says. Manufacturers who have had vehicles with similar panoramic sunroof problems, including Audi, Hyundai and Nissan, have voluntarily initiated safety recalls, but Mercedes has failed to follow suit, the case adds. To make matters worse, Mercedes' inaction persists even after the automaker was hit with class action lawsuits in May 2018, June 2020 and February 2021 over the panoramic sunroof defect, the case contends. The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States who purchased or leased any of the above-mentioned Mercedes-Benz vehicles through the date of class certification. [GN] MERCY HEALTH: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Junked ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PECK, v. MERCY HEALTH, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00834-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie L. White entered an order that Mercy's "Motion to Reconsider or to Amend/Modify Order and Certify for Interlocutory Appeal" is denied. The further order that Mercy's corresponding "Motion to Stay and for Expedited Consideration" is denied as moot. Mercy has failed to carry the heavy burden of demonstrating that the Court's Order of December 27, 2022 warrants immediate appeal. Thus, the Court will not certify its Order for interlocutory appeal. Further, Mercy does not address the standard for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or establish any manifest error that would warrant reconsideration. Thus, the Court will not amend its December 27, 2022 Order. The Plaintiff Danielle Peck brings this action against Mercy for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act ("OPLA") and Oklahoma common law for breach of implied contract. Mercy is a health system with locations in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kansas. The Plaintiff, who has worked for Mercy in Oklahoma as a Unit Registration Representative since July 2016, asserts that Mercy willfully failed to compensate hourly-paid employees for work performed during meal breaks. On March 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Certification. The Court granted the motion on December 27, 2022, and certified the following FLSA collective class. "All hourly-paid employees of the Defendants who were or are subject to the automatic meal break deduction policies at any time on or after three years prior to the date on which the Court approves this collective certification. The Court further ordered Mercy to identify all putative members of the collective by providing their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and email addresses. Mercy Health is a Catholic health care ministry serving Ohio and Kentucky. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KwygAZ at no extra charge.[CC] MICHIGAN: Motion to Dismiss Children Foster Care Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Children's Rights disclosed that in Detroit, federal Judge Nancy G. Edmunds rejected Michigan's attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit on behalf of 19,000 children in state foster care. The lawsuit, filed in August 2006 to reform the state's foster care system, by national watchdog group Children's Rights and Michigan-based law firm Dykema Gossett, asserts that the safety and wellbeing of children in state custody are being jeopardized by a lack of management and resources in the state's child welfare system. Settlement negotiations between Michigan and Children's Rights have broken down. Discovery in the lawsuit will proceed immediately. "This ruling means that Michigan's children will have their long-overdue day in court," said Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children's Rights. "It is unfortunate that Michigan tried to cast aside the lawsuit, rather than fix a system that everyone knows to be seriously broken," said Sara Bartosz, Children's Rights staff attorney and lead attorney on the case. "It is time for the state to live up to its legal obligations to foster children." Michigan's own DHS Director Marianne Udow was recently quoted as saying, "I truly believe we are putting children in jeopardy even with the current budget." Among the systemic problems that the class action lawsuit, known as Dwayne B. v. Granholm, seeks to correct: -- Poor monitoring of child safety and denial of physical and mental health services for children. -- Failure to quickly move children into permanent homes; 6,300 children in Michigan are legally free for adoption, but are growing up as permanent state wards. -- A severe shortage of licensed foster homes; approximately 40% of Michigan children in state care live in unlicensed homes. -- Failure to utilize available federal funding; Michigan loses millions of federal foster care dollars each year due to mismanagement. [GN] MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion for Sanctions Against Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the maker of Trident gum, sued over a mint leaf on its package, wanted an Illinois federal court to penalize the lawyer who has besieged the food industry with lawsuits but a judge there has ruled that request premature. Mondelez Global on Feb. 14 filed a motion for sanctions against attorney Spencer Sheehan, a New York-based lawyer known for his novel concepts of consumer deception. He's filed hundreds of proposed class actions around the country, with some of them angering defendants and perplexing judges. However, there are successes -- like a settlement over vitamin C claims on Vizzy hard seltzers that could net Sheehan and other lawyers $2.5 million. The gist of Sheehan's strategy is to find a product that features a certain ingredient on the front label but doesn't actually include that ingredient, then file suit on behalf of a customer who claims he or she expected that ingredient. Recent examples include bagged cheese curl snacks called Jalapeno Poppers that do not include jalapenos and a rejected case over Lorna Doone cookies that were allegedly marketed as Scottish but contained no butter -- like a traditional Scottish shortbread cookie would. Mondelez Global defeated that case at the dismissal stage. It's hoping to do the same in the Northern District of Illinois in the case that alleges gum-chewers expected real mint in their Trident, despite what the ingredients list said. It filed its motion to dismiss the same day as the motion for sanctions, alleging Sheehan's plaintiff has no standing because she suffered no harm. Noting many other dismissals, Mondelez now says Sheehan should be punished for continuing to pursue the Trident case. "Plaintiff's counsel tends to file the same copy-and-paste complaint in all his many cases, regardless of how frequently his claims have been dismissed," the motion for sanctions says. "Courts have repeatedly admonished him for doing so and have threatened sanctions. "In cases like this one, sanctions are appropriate to deter serial filers." The motion cites an Illinois Southern District ruling that called him a "serial filer of frivolous litigation in various federal courts across the country." It seeks the costs Mondelez incurred fighting the Trident case. But Judge Iain Johnston on Feb. 1 said that motion was premature, as he hasn't even ruled on the motion to dismiss. Once he does, Johnston says Mondelez can refile it. [GN] MONEYGRAM INTL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Moneygram International 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 24, 2023, that the motion to dismiss filed by the Company is pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that MoneyGram entered into with the FTC in October 2009 and with the DPA that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Justice in November 2012. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously defending this matter. On May 16, 2019, MoneyGram filed a motion to dismiss which the court has yet to rule upon. MoneyGram is an American cross-border P2P payments and money transfer company based in the United States with headquarters in Dallas, Texas. The Individual Defendants are director of the Company.[BN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Plaintiffs Win Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the Defendants' experts; -- denying the Defendants' motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' experts; -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rules 23(b)(3) and (b)(2), and -- denying the Defendants’ motion for sanctions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kjjoew at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL FREIGHT: Court Denies Bid for Class Decertification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN F. PORTILLO, RAFAEL SUAREZ, MARTIN DURAN, GERMAN BENCOMSE, EDIN VARGAS, LUIS A. HERNANDEZ, JOSUE PAZ, and ALVARO CASTANEDA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-07908-JHR-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered an order denying the Defendants motion to decertify the class previously certified by the Court on June 30, 2020 and vacating the Courts June 9, 2022 Summary Judgment Order. National Freight offers warehousing, intermodal, brokerage, goods distribution, cross docking, management, real estate, and global transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xKhvdZ at no extra charge.[CC] NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Class Suit Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- Neogenomics 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 24, 2023, that the Goldenberg class suit is pending and ongoing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants. This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. At the time of filing the outcome of this matter is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics operates a network of cancer testing laboratories in the United States, Europe, and Asia.[BN] NEW YORK, NY: Brennan, et al., File Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK BRENNAN, et al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01716-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification, and such other and further relief as the Court may consider just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZmrTEI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Bergstein, Esq. BERGSTEIN & ULLRICH 5 Paradies Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (845) 469-1277 - and - Richard Cardinale, Esq. 26 Court Street, Suite # 1507 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (718) 624-9391 - and - Catherine E.Anderson, Esq. Jason Solotaroff, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Lawsuits Pile Up Following Trail Derailment ------------------------------------------------------------- Dave "Dino" DeNatale, writing for Wkyc, reports that as Norfolk Southern contends with criticism from the EPA and other government entities in the cleanup of the East Palestine train derailment, it is also dealing with the growing number of lawsuits filed by residents and business owners. On Feb. 22, Cleveland-based Lipson O'Shea Legal Group filed a pair of federal class action suits in the Northern District of Ohio. Both suits are seeking over $5 million in damages. One of the suits is seeking class action status for those who suffered property damage and economic loss. It covers properties that "were contaminated by the derailment and subsequent chemical burn" as well as those who have "lost work, productivity, revenue and/or economic opportunity" as a result of the derailment. The impact area for those affected could extend up to a 25-mile radius from the derailment site. The other suit seeks class action status for "all individuals in East Palestine and/or in a 10-mile radius of the derailment, who were exposed to the release of hazardous fumes, chemicals, carcinogens and other toxic substances, and who have exhibited physical symptoms of that exposure, including, but not limited to: headaches, skin and eye irritation, trouble breathing, and vomiting." Both suits take Norfolk Southern to task for the decision to have a controlled release of the chemicals inside the railroad cars three days after the derailment, specifically the "vent and burn" of Vinyl Chloride. "Norfolk Southern knew, or should have known, draining and burning Vinyl Chloride would expose the surrounding area to extremely toxic chemicals via the air, soil, and water," the suits state. Earlier, Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP joined with two other firms in filing a class action suit against Norfolk Southern, which similarly criticized the rail company for the controlled release. "Norfolk Southern's flawed response released more than twice the toxics released in the initial derailment, creating a million-pound chemical burn pit that would burn and discharge thick toxic smoke for days causing widespread anxiety, panic, and fear of dire health consequences," the firm wrote on its website announcing the lawsuit. There are at least eight lawsuits currently filed in U.S. District Court against Norfolk Southern. The wreck occurred on Feb. 3, when the 150-car Norfolk Southern freight train came off the tracks and caught fire. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the train was going between Madison, Illinois and Conway, Pennsylvania, passing through Cleveland prior to derailing in Columbiana County. Due to the potential for an explosion, officials evacuated everyone within a one-mile radius and conducted a "controlled release" of hazardous chemicals on Feb. 6. Although residents were cleared to return home just days following the release, there continue to be health and safety concerns. On Feb. 21, EPA Administrator Michael Regan ordered Norfolk Southern to clean up the aftermath of the derailment, including assuming all financial costs. If Norfolk Southern fails to complete any action ordered by the EPA, the agency will immediately step in, conduct the work on its own and then force Norfolk Southern to pay triple in cost. In a series of tweets on Feb. 21, President Biden affirmed that it will be up to the rail company to handle responsibility for the cleanup. "This is their mess. They should clean it up," he stated. [GN] NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Monopolization ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that NorthShore University Healthsystem failed to upend the certification of a class of purchasers of inpatient healthcare services who allege it engaged in illegal monopolization and used its leverage to artificially inflate prices. NorthShore's challenge to the methodology of the plaintiffs' expert whose testimony was used to establish a classwide antitrust injury fails because it is "essentially the same methodology" that the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled admissible, Judge Edmond E. Chang of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said. [GN] NORWEX USA: Faces Mahler TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Prerecorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Mahler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORWEX USA, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00326-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 21, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its its goods and services, by sending unsolicited prerecorded calls to wireless phone users without the requisite express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On September 26, 2022, the Defendant caused a prerecorded voice message to be transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 2898 from the telephone number 502-513-6001. The prerecorded messages included a prerecorded voice which identified itself as calling from "Norwex" and informed Plaintiff of a $20 option with Norwex for a basic package and a 35% discount to restock. The Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages caused Plaintiff additional harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's call also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to Plaintiff's daily life, the suit claims. As a result of the Defendant's conduct and pursuant to section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an injunction against future calls, says the suit. Norwex USA is a cleaning and personal care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com OLO INC: Continues to Defend Steamship Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Olo 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Steamship securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 26, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain executive officers, captioned Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore - International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., et al (Case 1:22-cv-08228). An amended complaint in the lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2023. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that Olo made materially false and misleading statements regarding the number of active locations. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the Court deems appropriate. The Company believed the case is without merit and are vigorously defending this matter. Olo provides software to restaurants to assist with online ordering and food-delivery coordination.[BN] OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Mangrove Partners Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.Com 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Mangrove Partners securities class suit. On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same court also naming the Company and the above referenced former executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019. The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against the Company, its President, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and, on September 28, 2020, the court granted its motion and entered judgment in its favor. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October 23, 2020. The United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint on January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 11, 2021. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and on September 20, 2021, the court granted its motion and entered judgment in its favor. On October 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the ruling of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Th Company is awaiting a ruling from the Tenth Circuit that heard oral argument on the appeal on February 9, 2023. No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made at this time. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this consolidated action. Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Midvale, Utah. PALMDALE 794 INC: Faces Wage Class Action Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Palmdale 794 Inc. DBA IHOP 794 ("IHOP") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. The IHOP class action lawsuit, Case No. 23STCV02326, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, IHOP allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 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; (6) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) provide gratuities. The lawsuit also alleges IHOP violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties as a result of IHOP's conduct. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. An "aggrieved employee" is defined as "any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." Cal. Lab. Code section 2699(c). PAGA allows aggrieved employees to become "deputized" as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code. If you would like to know more about the IHOP 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] PEABODY ENERGY: Settlement in OFPRS Suit Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants final approval of the settlement agreement of the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Systems. On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System brought a lawsuit, styled In Re Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 (PKC), against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) on behalf of a putative class of shareholders (Plaintiffs) who held Company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Securities Class Action). Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to restart the mine after the fire. On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021, while the Plaintiffs' response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs' opposition on August 23, 2021, which completed briefing. On March 7, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. As a result of this decision, only Plaintiffs' allegations relating to the Company's September 25, 2018 statements remained in the case. On May 13, 2022, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order. On August 2, 2022, Peabody and Plaintiffs agreed to settle all claims brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019 in exchange for $4.6 million, to be paid by Peabody's insurers. The parties further negotiated a definitive stipulation of settlement and related documents which do not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties and provide that the case be dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases by all parties. On October 13, 2022, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. On February 7, 2023, the Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement agreement thereby fully resolving the litigation. Peabody Energy Corporation is involved in mining and sale of thermal coal to electric utilities and metallurgical coal for industrial customers. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Loses Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN GRAINGER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02043-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Strand said, "I agree with Precision that class treatment appears to offer no benefit compared to individual actions. While Precision may have uniformly communicated an "effective hourly rate" on all employee pay stubs, there are other relevant circumstances, including supervisors' communications, as to whether a reasonable employee would have considered the "effective hourly rate" to be an offer to pay a mid-year 2020 bonus. As such, class resolution is not the superior method for resolving this dispute." The case is before me on plaintiff Devin Grainger's motion for class certification. The Defendant Precision of New Hampton has filed a resistance and Grainger has filed a reply. Oral argument is not necessary. Grainger was previously employed at Precision and seeks to certify a class of similarly-situated current and former employees to recover unpaid wages in the form of a bonus. Precision is a family-owned business that manufactures a variety of torque converters. 1 It employs approximately 150 hourly-wage employees at its New Hampton facility. Employees are eligible to receive mid-year and year-end bonuses. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ShPXq0 at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taylor v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-01949 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered a scheduling order. -- Motion for Class Certification due by Feb. 9, 2024. P&G is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud.[CC] RICE DRILLING: Court Reschedules Class Cert. Hearing in J&R Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order rescheduling the time for the class certification hearing due to a conflict with the Court's trial calendar. -- Counsel for the parties are to appear before the Court for the Class Certification Hearing on Wednesday, February 15, 2023. -- The Class Certification Hearing in this case may not be continued by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known. -- Counsel should prepare for this hearing with the knowledge that the Court has already studied the memoranda related to class certification. Counsel should be prepared to answer questions raised by the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YZ031e at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT G. MILLER: Consumer Law Group Files Sexual Exploitation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Law Group announced: ANY INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE TO OUR LAW FIRM IN THE SIGN-UP SECTION BELOW IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL NEVER BE DISCLOSED TO ANYONE EVER, UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCT US TO DO SO. If you do not feel comfortable filling in the form below, you can call us at (514) 266-7863 or email us at info@clg.org. CONSUMER LAW GROUP has instituted a class action against Robert G. Miller and Future Electronics in the Superior Court of Quebec, district of Montreal, on behalf of the following Class: -- All persons who, while under the age of 18 years, performed sexual services in exchange for consideration with and/or were victims of sexual exploitation by Robert G. Miller or any other group to be determined by the Court; On February 2, 2023, Radio-Canada's investigative program Enquete aired a program called «Le Systeme Miller - des jeunes filles, de l'argent, des hotels » and The Fifth Estate aired a program called "The girls around Robert G. Miller". Defendant Robert G. Miller denies these allegation On February 3, 2023, Defendant Robert G. Miller reiterated his denial of the allegations through an internal memo sent to staff stating that he "adamantly and vehemently denies the malicious allegations made against him and confirms that they are false", nevertheless he stepped down as President and CEO of Defendant Future Electronics. The Montreal police investigated the allegations in 2009, but no charges were filed. On February 8, 2023, Defendant Future Electronics terminated its relationship with Sam Abrams (Executive Vice President at Future Electronics), Raymond Poulet (Conseiller Prive de Robert Milller at Future Electronics), and National Criminal Investigation Service [NCIS] (a private security company). On February 9, 2023, Enquete aired a follow-up program called « Elles l'appelaient Bob . . . ». If you or someone you know was involved in this situation and you wish more information on potential compensation or to be kept advised of the status of the Class Action litigation or any resulting compensation from the Class Action Lawsuit, please provide your contact information to our law firm using the below form. IF YOU WISH TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION OR TO SIMPLY GET MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM BELOW. Please note that providing your information creates no financial obligation for you. You are not charged any fee or cost for joining this class action. Our law firm is paid a contingency fee from the compensation recovered, only if the class action is successful. All information contained in this transmission is confidential and Consumer Law Group agrees to protect this information against unauthorized use, publication or disclosure. [GN] S.C. JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Rosenberg Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OWEN ROSENBERG, CARRIE MCDOUGLE, CHRIS LEMKE, and ANGELA MILLER, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00869-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint. The Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint in line with the Court's directives within 14 days of the Order. The Court will enter its Pretrial Order immediately following entry of the Order. The parties are expected to carefully review the Court's protocols and should note that extensions of time will not be looked upon favorably. The Court adopts the Plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff Owen Rosenberg. The Plaintiff Owen Rosenberg's claims against Defendant S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff Owen Rosenberg be and the same is dismissed from the action. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim be and the same is dismissed with prejudice. On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff Rosenberg filed this lawsuit, pleading class allegations based on labeling claims of non-toxicity on Windex products. On September 28, 2020, Defendant S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiffs' putative class is defined as: "All consumers who reside in the United States (except for residents of California or New York) who purchased any of the Products in the United States (except for purchases of the Products made in the states of California or New York), who bought any of the Products during the time period June 8, 2017 to the time of trial. ("Class"). The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a sub-class of Wisconsin residents who purchased the Products in the state of Wisconsin at any time during the time period June 8, 2017 to the time of trial. ("Wisconsin Sub-Class"). The settlement class in the Clark Action was defined as "All persons that, [d]uring the Class Period, both resided in the United States and purchased in the United States any Product for personal and household use and not for resale." The "class period" is "the time period from the date when SC Johnson initially labeled the Products as non-toxic to [July 9, 2021]." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SrAm7k at no extra charge.[CC] SALISBURY BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed NBT 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: Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SAL), relating to its proposed merger NBT Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the merger, SAL shareholders will receive 0.745 shares of NBT per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/salisbury-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Brunswick Bancorp (OTC: BRBW), relating to its proposed acquisition by Mid Penn Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, BRBW shareholders are expected to receive either 0.598 shares of Mid Penn common stock or $18.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/brunswick-bancorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Angion Biomedia Corp. (NASDAQ: ANGN), relating to its proposed merger with Elicio Therapeutics. Under the terms of the agreement, Elicio shareholders are expected to receive new shares of ANGN, with ANGN shareholders expected to own approximately 34.5% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/angion-biomedia-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Trean Insurance Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIG), relating to its proposed acquisition by affiliates of Altaris, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, TIG shareholders are expected to receive $6.15 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/trean-insurance-group-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. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SHINE JUSTICE: May Face Class Action Suit Over Accounting Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michaelwest Media reports that it is understood that a class action law firm is planning to take a class action against class action law firm Shine Justice. What's the scam? The scam is shonky accounting, as per the story below. The question is, is this law firm breaking the law? We posed questions to them and their auditors PwC but they declined to respond. Then they came out with more of the same today when they disclosed their financial statements and the share price tanked 20%. Shine has already been sued, and settled confidentially, for dodgy accounting practices. It is understood that another law firm is close to filing an action regarding Shine Justice's irregular accounting practices. The guts of it is that the accounting profits that Shine reports are very different from the actual cash which comes through the door, ergo questions around the firm's legal disclosures. Under the Corporations Act, it is required that companies comply with Australian Accounting Standards (AASB). If they don't, they are breaking the law. The following investigation shows that Shine Justice appears to be breaking the law. The results show revenue rose by 9% to $11lm but the Cash Flow statement confirms that Shine's actual cash receipts during the half year fell from $95m to $87m. Actual cash at bank dropped from $52m to $23m. [GN] SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Faces Valencia Suit Over Fruit Beverage False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- Selina Valencia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snapple Beverage Corp., Case No. 7:23-cv-01399 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant manufactures and sells fruit beverages described as "All Natural" despite containing ingredients such as chemical preservatives under the Snapple brand. According to the complaint, the statement of "All Natural" is false, deceptive and misleading because the ingredient list reveals the Product contains citric acid, an artificial ingredient. Nowhere on the Product, including on the ingredient list, are purchasers informed that citric acid is a chemical preservative. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price of $1.99 for 16 oz, excluding tax and sales, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product, that it was all natural, which she understood as not containing synthetic or chemical ingredients and added coloring, without chemical preservatives, and that truthfully disclosed its nutrition and calories based on how purchasers will consume it, i.e., the entire bottle. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at stores including Stop & Shop, 420 White Plains Rd, Eastchester, New York, in the fall and/or winter of 2022, and/or among other times. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Snapple Beverage is a leading seller of non-carbonated juice drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com SPLUNK INC: Class Certification Bid Terminated in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Splunk Inc. Securities, Case No. 4:20-cv-08600 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order that motion for class certification was rendered moot by the filing of the Lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Accordingly, the motion for class certification is terminated. The suit alleges violation of Securities Exchange Act. Splunk is an American software company based in San Francisco, California, that produces software for searching, monitoring, and analyzing machine-generated data via a Web-style interface.[CC] SPOKEO INC: Court OK's Stipulation to Modify Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, et al., v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting joint stipulation modifying class certification briefing schedule: 1. Plaintiffs' motion will be due on: March 31, 2023 2. Spokeo's opposition will be due on: May 31, 2023 3. Plaintiffs' reply will be due on: June 30, 2023 4. The hearing on the motion will be July 19, 2023 held on: Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline sources. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z7dOLe at no extra charge.[CC] STAPLES THE OFFICE: Court Partly Grants Corral Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, a limited liability company authorized to do business in the state of California, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01254-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order is granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiff's motion to certify the Regular Rate Class and Waiting Time Penalties Subclass is denied. -- The Plaintiff's motion to certify the Wage Statement Classes is granted. -- Wage Statement Class 1 is defined as all current and former non-exempt 15 of Defendant who worked for Defendant in the State of California from November 12, 2020 to September 17, 2021, who received a "meal rest premium" from November 12, 2020 and September 17, 2021, and who received nondiscretionary incentive compensation. -- Wage Statement Class 2 is defined as all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked one or more closing shifts for the Defendant in the State of California from November 12, 2020 to September 17, 2021, who received a "meal rest premium" between November 12, 2020 and September 17, 2021, and who worked in one of the following positions: Assistant Manager, Sales Manager, Operations Supervisor, and Tech Supervisor. -- The Court appoints Plaintiff Juan Carlos Corral to serve as the class 25 for both Wage Statement Classes. The Court appoints GrahamHollis APC as class counsel for both Wage Statement Classes. -- The Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case, including the final date for hearing a dispositive motion, the date for a final pretrial conference and pretrial filings, and a date for trial. The parties shall also meet and confer regarding a proposed plan for class notice to be given at Defendant's expense. The parties shall submit the proposed plan and proposed schedule within 21 days of the date of this order. Because Plaintiff has met his obligation of satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to his Wage Statement Classes. The Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint GrahamHollis APC as class counsel. The Court grants this request. Class counsel has done significant work in identifying claims and investigating the potential claims in this action. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who worked in a non-exempt position at one of Defendant's retail stores in Los Angeles. Staples operates as an office products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IfZ2L9 at no extra charge.[CC] SUEZ WTS: Scheduling Order Deadlines Continued in Bulnes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BULNES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. SUEZ WTS SERVICES USA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01154-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order granting joint motion to continue scheduling order deadlines as follows: 1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by April 20, 2023. 2. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by June 20, 2023. 3. Within three days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further case management conference. Suez WTS produces and markets a variety of specialty chemical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z1nruM at no extra charge.[CC] SUMTER ORIGINAL: Stokes, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chasidy N. Stokes, Kellian N. Wineski, Pamela Kelley, Lexus Harris, Malcolm Perry, and Michael Sheehan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Sumter Original Brewery, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01801-MGL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a collective action, approving the parties' settlement, and authorizing the issuance of notice and payments to the Class Members. Finally, the $1,500 service awards in this case are fair and reasonable in light of the service the Plaintiffs performed for the Class Members. By bringing this litigation, the Plaintiffs have triggered the potential payment of wages to every bartender who worked for the Defendant in an amount that more than doubles the wages originally paid. Moreover, they have assisted counsel in evaluating settlement options, negotiating settlement, and identifying potential witnesses that contributed to the prosecution of this case. The relatively modest service awards here (less than five percent of the total settlement and less than ten percent of the settlement pool amount) are appropriate under the circumstances and well below what courts have approved in connection with other collective action settlements. The Plaintiffs, with the consent of the Defendant, respectfully request that this Court approve the parties' settlement of this action, certify this matter as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In a nutshell, the action concerns allegations that Defendant failed to follow the rules required to establish a valid tip pool and claim the tip credit. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant's tip pool was non-compliant with FLSA rules because Defendant: -- failed to provide adequate notice to the Class Members; -- paid tip pool funds to Defendant's managers and/or owners; and -- paid tip pool funds to non-tipped employees such as kitchen staff. The Plaintiffs contended that as a result of Defendant's failure to comply with the FLSA's tip credit and tip pooling rules, they and the Class Members were entitled to payment of such amounts as were necessary to comply with the federal minimum wage. Plaintiffs also sought recovery of tip pool amounts paid to unauthorized persons, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs. Sumter is a retail establishment serving food and beverages to the public. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lVQlhy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey P. Dunlaevy, Esq. DUNLAEVY LAW FIRM 37 Villa Road, Suite 440 Greenville, SC 29615 Telephone: (864) 208-9305 Facsimile: (864) 208-9313 E-mail: jeff@dunlaevylaw.com - and - John S. Keffer, Esq. KEFFER LAW FIRM 10 Law Range Sumter, SC 29150 Telephone: (803) 774-1004 Facsimile: (803) 774-1005 E-mail:jkeffer@kefferlawfirm.com TRANSAT AT: Motion to Certify Suit Over Delayed Flights Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- McCarthy Tétrault LLP disclosed that Spencer v. Transat A.T. Inc., 2022 BCSC 2256 is a recent example of the BC Supreme Court exercising its gatekeeper role to screen out proposed class actions that are bound to fail. The court dismissed the plaintiff's certification application because it failed to disclose a cause of action, and then dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend her pleadings because her claims were time-barred. For both decisions, the court relied upon the Montreal Convention,1 which the court found to be a complete code regarding the liability of international air carriers. This case illustrates the powerful role that an attack on the pleadings can play in defending a proposed class proceeding, and also highlights the role that international conventions can play in circumscribing domestic class proceedings. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant airlines misrepresented that her flight from Kelowna to Cancun was non-stop, when in reality it included a fuel stop. She sought to represent a class of persons who bought direct flights from the defendants and experienced delays as a result of "premeditated" fuel stops. The defendant airlines successfully defeated the plaintiff's certification application. In Spencer v. Transat AT Inc, 2022 BCSC 145 (the "Certification Decision"), the court found that the plaintiff's claim failed to disclose a cause of action and thus failed to satisfy s. 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to properly plead a claim under the Montreal Convention, which is a complete code for claims against international air carriers. As a result, the plaintiff's other pleaded civil and statutory causes of action were struck out, but the court granted her leave to apply to amend her claim in relation to the Montreal Convention. However, the plaintiff's amendment application was also dismissed because her claim was time-barred under the Montreal Convention. Section 35 of the Montreal Convention requires any claim for damages against an airline to be brought within two years of the relevant flight, failing which the claim is extinguished. While the plaintiff had started an action against the defendant airlines within six months of her flight, she had not pleaded a claim under the Montreal Convention until after the two-year period expired. The plaintiff argued that the chambers judge had discretion under the BC Limitation Act to allow her claim to proceed despite the expiry of the applicable limitation period. The plaintiff also argued that she had advanced all material facts necessary to sustain such a claim under the Montreal Convention in the earlier version of her pleading. The court rejected both arguments: s. 3 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that the Act does not apply to a claim that is subject to a limitation period imposed by an "international convention or treaty that is adopted by an Act." In the result, the claim under the Montreal Convention was extinguished, and her application to amend her pleadings was dismissed. [GN] TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 26 Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN, et al., v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (TSI), et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01132-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for reconsideration of January 26, 2023 order denying class certification and granting in part motion for summary judgment. The claims Plaintiffs seek to certify will succeed or fail depending on whether Defendants can authenticate the Schedules necessary to prove assignment and TSI practices regarding affidavits. Regarding whether the relief the Plaintiffs seek primarily monetary relief, this too is irrelevant to class certification. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction, and the monetary relief is dependent on a finding that Defendants engaged in the unfair or deceptive conduct Plaintiffs seek to enjoin under the WCPA. The Plaintiffs include SARAH DOUGLASS; ANTHONY KIM; and IL KIM and DARIA KIM, husband and wife and the marital community comprised thereof, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated. The Defendants include PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.; MATTHEW CHEUNG, and the marital community comprised of MATTHEW CHEUNG and JANE DOE CHEUNG; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-4. Transworld Systems provides receivables collection and management services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1wue8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sam Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW 9030 35th Avenue SW, STE 100 Seattle, WA 98126 Telephone: (206) 486-1176 Facsimile: (206) 458-6028 E-mail: sam@seattledebtdefense.com - and - Guy W. Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 441-5444 Facsimile: (206) 838-6346 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com - and - Christina L. Henry, Esq. HENRY & DeGRAAFF, P.S. 113 Cherry St, PMB 58364 Seattle, WA 98104-2205 Telephone: (206) 330-0595 Facsimile: (206) 400-7609 E-mail: chenry@HDM-legal.com - and - Amanda N. Martin, Esq. NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 805-0989 Facsimile: (206) 805-1716 E-mail: Amanda@NWCLC.org UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment in DeFries Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS DEFRIES, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00205-SB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order granting Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation to which DeFries has objected, as well as DeFries's objection, Union Pacific's response, DeFries's reply, the transcript of oral argument on Union Pacific's summary judgment motion, and the underlying materials filed before Judge Beckerman. The Court agrees with Judge Beckerman's reasoning regarding the untimeliness of DeFries's claims and adopts those portions of the Findings and Recommendation. The Court adopts Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, as supplemented. DeFries asserts claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), against Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). Union Pacific provides rail transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xApU3C at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Court OKs Schupp's Bid to Remand ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SCHUPP, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00714-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an a memorandum granting Plaintiff Schupp's motion to remand and denying as moot the Defendant USAA's motion to dismiss. The case shall be closed and remanded to the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland. The court will issue an accompanying order in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Here, Schupp's complaint is not sufficiently similar in substance to a class action under Rule 23. While USAA parses Schupp's complaint for language that may support a hypothetical motion for class certification, significant barriers exist to class-wide relief. To be sure, Schupp's complaint paints with a broad brush insofar as the potential benefit USAA Maryland policy holders should he prevail. But Schupp is the master of his complaint and is not beholden to USAA's interpretation of it. Jason M. Schupp brought this pro se action against USAA for allegedly charging customers higher premiums than advertised. The company purportedly told customers it would not increase their premiums if they were involved in certain types of accidents -- such as no-fault accidents and at-fault accidents under $750. USAA, however, allegedly programmed its pricing algorithm to consider those types of accidents, which ultimately increased the rates for some customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XKdLUy at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot in L.F.O.P. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.F.O.P., E.C.C., J.C.C., F.M., M.U.Z., A.J.L.N., M.M.S.S., A.P., G.M., individually and as representatives of a similarly situated class, Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her capacity as Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-11556 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an order finding as moot: -- motion to certify class; -- motion to appoint counsel; -- motion to substitute party; -- motion to amend; -- motion for leave to file document; and -- motion for leave to file document. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Ruse & Knock and Talk Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSNY SORTO-VASQUEZ KIDD et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and appointing Lead Plaintiffs and class counsel. The Court certifies each Class as follows: -- Ruse Class "All individuals residing at a home in the Los Angeles Area of Responsibility where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted or will conduct a warrantless civil immigration enforcement operation in which officers enter the home under a claim of consent, or where the individual exits their home at the request of ICE, without officers first verbally stating their true identity as immigration officers or their immigration law purpose." -- Knock and Talk" Class "All individuals residing at a home in the LA AOR where ICE has conducted or will conduct a warrantless civil immigration enforcement operation using a "knock and talk." The Court appoints CHIRLA and ICIJ as Lead Plaintiffs, and the Court appoints the ACLU Foundation of Southern California; the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic; and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as class counsel. The Plaintiffs Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd, the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice ("ICIJ"), and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights ("CHIRLA") allege that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures in arresting and detaining removable immigrants in and near their own homes. The Plaintiffs bring claims against several officials for ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security working in their official capacities; the United States of America; and individual ICE 2 officers O.M., C.C., J.H., and J.N. ICIJ and CHRILA seek certification of two classes of individuals who have been or will be affected by Defendants' alleged unconstitutional practices. The Plaintiffs challenge how ICE conducts law enforcement in its Los Angeles Area of Responsibility ("LA AOR"), which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YQDBr8 at no extra charge.[CC] VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Bid to Extend Time to Object Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MULVEY, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, v. VERTAFORE INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00213-E-BN (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ada Brown entered an order accepting findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to file objections. However, Plaintiff, thereafter, timely filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation on September 6, 2022. As such, Plaintiff's requested extension, is denied as moot. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore (i) denies Vertafore's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but (ii) grants Vertafore's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court shall dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice by separate judgment. Consequently, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Vertafore provides software and critical information to solve business challenges and capture new opportunities in the insurance industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z1b42o at no extra charge.[CC] VIANT UPLAND: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum & OT Wages, Sing Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SING, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General v. VIANT UPLAND, INC., a California Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV03510 (Cal. Super., Feb. 17, 2023) sues the Defendant for: -- failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked, -- failing to provide rest breaks, -- failing to provide uninterrupted meal breaks, -- failing to pay wages due upon termination, and -- failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violating record keeping requirements. The Defendant required employees to undergo temperature checks and screening in connection with its COVID-safety protocol. The Defendant conducted this screening off the clock although it was clearly required and should have been paid as time worked. Furthermore, employee timecards are rounded to the nearest quarter-hour in a manner that favors Defendant. The Defendant also failed to permit Plaintiff and others to take timely, uninterrupted, off-duty meal breaks 19 of "not less than 30 minutes" for each five consecutive hours of work, the lawsuit claims. Based on Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Defendant's failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, resulted in a payment of less than the minimum wage for those hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 1197, 1197.1, 1199 and the Wage Orders. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in their Upland facility until June of 2022. Viant is a manufacturer of medical devices and equipment in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koull aw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com VOLTA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Securities' Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanford Law School disclosed that a securities lawsuit was filed against Volta, Inc. on February 21, 2023 This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 18, 2023, pursuant to which Volta, Inc. will be acquired by Shell USA, Inc. Volta, Inc. was formed on August 26, 2021 when Volta Industries, Inc. ("Legacy Volta"), a private entity, and Tortoise Acquisition Corp. II, a special purpose acquisition company, completed a business combination. On February 8, 2023, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. [GN] VOLVO CARS: Wins Summary Judgment in Laurens Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHADIJA LAURENS, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-08798-JXN-JRA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; 2. denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class and the Defendant's motion to strike as moot; and 3. directing the Clerk of Court to mark the case as closed. Volvo Cars manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lJQrIZ at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sousa Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE SOUSA, et al., v. WALMART, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order that: 1. The Court's prior findings and recommendations are vacated in light of the parties' consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction; 2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; 3. The Plaintiffs' Sam's Club allegations, the Fifth Cause of Action (UCL claim) with respect to wage statement violations, and the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) with respect to expense reimbursement and rest break violations are dismissed without leave to amend; 4. Save and except as noted above, the Fifth Cause of Action (UCL claim) and the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) are dismissed with leave to amend; and 5. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint within 30 days. 6. Further, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding further scheduling in the case. Additionally, the Court sets a status conference to be held on March 23, 2023, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The proposed Class members are all people who are or who have been employed by the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees, including but not limited to associates, cashiers, stockers, attendants, pharmacists, custodians, security guards, and other hourly and non-exempt employees throughout the State of California within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC. The proposed Night Shift Manager Subclass are all people who are or who have been employed by Defendants as hourly, non-exempt overnight support managers and/or night managers, or other positions with similar job duties, throughout the State of California within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EpS9Ga at no extra charge.[CC] WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend Collinsville Consolidated Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Bros. Discovery 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Collinsville and Todorovski consolidated class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Between September 23, 2022 and October 24, 2022, two purported class action lawsuits (Collinsville Police Pension Board v. Discovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08171; Todorovski v. Discovery, Inc., et a., Case No. 1:22-cv-09125) were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints name Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc., David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements in SEC filings and in certain public statements relating to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints seek damages and other relief. On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the Collinsville and Todorovski complaints under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend these litigations. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBD) is a media company, provides content across various distribution platforms in approximately 50 languages worldwide. It also produces, develops, and distributes feature films, television, gaming, and other content in various physical and digital formats through basic networks, direct-to-consumer or theatrical, TV content, and games licensing. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.is headquartered in New York, New York. WEBMD LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA LEBAKKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WebMD, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Parties stipulate and agree to extend the time to file a motion for class certification: 1. The deadline for a motion to certify the class and supporting expert reports shall be set for September 29, 2023; 2. The deadline for a response to the motion to certify and supporting expert reports shall be set for November 30, 2023; and 3. The deadline for a reply in support of the motion to certify the class and supporting expert reports shall be set for December 22, 2023. On February 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against WebMD, alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiff amended the class action complaint against WebMD. On July 15, 2022, WebMD filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint On November 4, 2022, the Court issued an ordering denying the motion to dismiss. The Defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2023, the Parties filed a revised joint preliminary report and discovery plan. The revised joint preliminary report and discovery plan stated that the Parties agreed that the deadline for a motion to certify the class and supporting expert reports should be set for September 29, 2023. On January 19, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order that did not address the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. WebMD is an American corporation known primarily as an online publisher of news and information pertaining to human health and well-being. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eojad7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com - and - Alyssa Baskam, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Overlook II 2839 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 E-mail: Alyssa.Baskam@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@Beasleyallen.com Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com The Defendant is represented by: Jefferson Mulloy Starr, Esq. LUEDER, LARKIN & HUNTER, LLC Suite 205, Bldg. 14, 3535 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 480-4028 E-mail: jstarr@luederlaw.com - and - Zoë Wilhelm, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 1800 Century Park E Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 E-mail: zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com WORKDAY INC: Faces Mobley Class Suit Over Job Screening Process --------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK L. MOBLEY, for and on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks injunctive, monetary, and declarative relief against the Defendant for engaging in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The Defendant continuous and systemic pattern or practice of discriminatory job screening-which disproportionately disqualifies African-Americans, individuals over the age of 40 and individuals with disabilities from securing gainful employment-resulted in the denial of employment to Mr. Mobley, the suit contends. Accordingly, Workday provides screening tools that allow its customers to use discriminatory and subjective judgments in reviewing and evaluating employees for hire and allows the preselection of applicants outside of the protected categories. If an individual does not make it past these Workday screening products, he/she will not advance in the hiring process. Workday provides this service for hundreds if not thousands of companies, including numerous Fortune 500 firms. Individuals impacted the same way by these processes number in the thousands if not tens of thousands, the suit adds. The selection tools and/or tests utilized by Workday, Inc. in making selection decisions-to include screening and hiring applicants allegedly discriminate on the basis of race in violation of section 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(k). These processes disparately impact African-American applicants because the tests have the effect of disproportionately excluding African-Americans. Furthermore, the tests or selection procedures are not job-related, nor are they consistent with any business necessity. Mr. Mobley is an African-American male, over the age of 40 and who suffers from depression and anxiety. He possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Finance from Morehouse College, and an Associate’s Degree in Network Systems Administration, from ITT Technical Institute. Workday is an employment agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Winston, Esq. Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. Winston Cooks, LLC 420 20th Street North, Suite#2200 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 502-0970 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com rcooks@winstoncooks.com XTO ENERGY: Court Won't Support Documents Filed Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVATORA et al v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097 (W.D. Pa., Filed Aug. 29, 2019), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order that to the extent the parties wish to utilize sealed documents at the hearing, the parties are on notice that the Court will not support its findings on class certification with documents filed under seal, as doing so would be against the public's right of access to the courts. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil principally operating in North America.[CC] YELP INC: Class Certification Reversal Petition Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Yelp 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 24, 2023, that the Company's class certification reversal petition is pending at the California Court of Appeal. On October 12, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit asserting claims against the Company was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco relating to alleged unlawful call recording and/or monitoring under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and other relief. In response, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted. Plaintiff appealed and, in October 2020, the California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed the decision of the trial court, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The case was then remanded to the Superior Court, where the Company subsequently amended its answer to add affirmative defenses, and Plaintiff amended his complaint to add additional named plaintiffs. On January 12, 2023, the Company filed another motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 19, 2023. On January 18, 2023 the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 17, 2023, the Company filed a petition for a writ with the California Court of Appeal, seeking reversal of the lower court’s class certification decision. No date has been set for trial. Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! --------------------------------------------------------------- Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8th, 2023. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and networking with other professionals. Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc. [*] Slovakia Set to Introduce First Ever Class Action Mechanism --------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Farbiak (Vienna) and Maria Gabriella Manzone (Vienna), Esq., of Schoenherr Attorneys at Law, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that following the implementation of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, Slovakia will soon introduce its first ever class action mechanism. Such a significant change in civil procedure could soon result in greenwashing class actions becoming a reality and not just a talking point. First class action mechanism in Slovakia ESG compliance has become a buzzword, but businesses touting their environmental bona fides often fail to implement their claims in reality. Companies are seeing various greenwashing class actions filed by consumers due to misleading and untrue sustainability marketing, false safeguarding of the environment, etc. Introducing the class action mechanism into Slovak law will give consumers the opportunity to join forces in litigation against businesses that seek to profit by falsely claiming ESG compliance to entice environmentally conscious customers. As decreased energy consumption and the use of renewable energy sources are among ESG principles, the current energy crisis could likely motivate consumers to sue businesses that deceptively claim to have decreased their energy consumption. Given the strong consumer protection laws and jurisprudence in Slovakia, the class action mechanism will likely prove immensely popular as soon as the new law becomes effective on 25 June 2023. Once the class actions mechanism is adopted, with subsequent implementation of the forthcoming EU directives on corporate sustainability due diligence and reporting, companies will need to put a lot more effort and money into complying with ESG principles and avoiding litigation from consumers. Risk for executives So how will businesses deal with the expected rise in greenwashing actions? Class actions will be mainly directed against the companies, which will naturally want to recover damages from their statutory representatives, who are obliged to exercise their function with professional diligence. The professional diligence of statutory representatives will come under the spotlight in the area of ESG compliance once forthcoming EU directives on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence have been adopted and implemented in Slovakia. These will introduce mandatory corporate sustainability due diligence requirements, such as the obligation to integrate due diligence into policies, update it annually, and publicly communicate on due diligence. Another important aim of the directives will be to secure that companies publish adequate information about the risks, opportunities and impacts of their activities on people and the environment. The planned concept of direct liability of statutory representative will put a lot of pressure on businesses. Therefore, many companies in Slovakia are already thinking about how to comply with the new requirements, once implemented. Many are seeking to introduce adequate systems to collect relevant ESG compliance data and to automate these as far as possible.[GN] [*] UK Law Firms Net More Than GBP1-Bil. from US-Style Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Irish Legal News reports that UK law firms will net more than £1 billion from a number of US-style class action lawsuits being considered by the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), according to new analysis. The CAT is currently considering a number of multi-billion actions brought against the likes of Apple, Google and Meta after a 2015 change in the law allowed for competition law claims to be brought on an "opt-out" basis for the first time. Though none of the 28 cases have settled or reached a conclusion yet, analysis by Law.com International suggests that UK law firms are set to earn around £1.3 billion in fees in total. The analysis is based on litigation budgets filed by claimants in nine of the actions, which set out expected legal costs ranging from £15 million to £45 million. Becky Pritchard, lead researcher for the report, said: "It is still early days for this regime as none of the cases have yet settled or reached trial, but lawyers and litigation funders expect this year to be busier than ever." [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 900 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2022 and 2021, had approximately 900 and 1,000 lawsuits pending against former parent company E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "At December 31, 2022 and 2021, Chemours had accruals of $35 and $33 related to these matters, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kyH1A2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 37,200 Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving approximately 37,200 claimants at December 31, 2022 relating to its alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by the Company or asbestos materials present at its facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was $16 million during 2022. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3Zvt0lv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace & Co. Settles Montana Claims for $18.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced an $18.5 million settlement between the former owner of the W.R. Grace & Co. mine and the hundreds of individuals diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases in the town of Libby, Montana. The mine, which operated for decades, exposed workers and residents to dangerous levels of the carcinogenic mineral. The settlement brings to an end a decades-long investigation and litigation involving individuals and families who were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, including malignant mesothelioma. The monies from the settlement will go towards compensating those victims, as well as towards funding continuing environmental clean-up projects and removal of the asbestos-containing materials that continue to contaminate homes and structures in the small town. Upon discovery of the many cases of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses being caused by the W.R. Grace & Company, the company faced over 65,000 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits encompassing more than 129,000 individual claims. They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001 that placed trust funds into an asbestos personal injury trust and an asbestos property damage trust. The company also paid the EPA $250 million for cleanup work. The $18.5 million settlement addresses the last of the environmental claims that the state issued against the company. Montana's governor Greg Gianforte said, "After years of negotiation following Grace's historic damage, Libby and communities in Lincoln County can more fully recover. I look forward to the positive impact this settlement can bring to the people of Libby and Lincoln County." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Pays $166MM in Asbestos Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. has recorded payments net of insurance recoveries, related to known asbestos matters of $166 million, $240 million, and $229 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, and are estimated to be approximately $133 million in 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We expect to make payments associated with these asbestos matters from operating cash flows. The timing of these payments depends on several factors, including the timing of litigation and settlements of liability claims. In early 2023, we made payments of approximately $1.3 billion in connection with the NARCO Buyout." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kz4Jw0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $20.3MM A&E Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc., has recorded total net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims of $20.3 million as of December 31, 2022 and $21.1 million as of December 31, 2021, with asbestos claims constituting approximately 23% of these reserves in both years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended period and can be unpredictable. "Environmental claims have arisen primarily from insured landfill exposures in municipal government and small non-manufacturing commercial risk, as well as leaking underground storage tanks within our homeowners policies. Asbestos claims have arisen primarily from policies issued to various distributors of asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials. We handle our asbestos and environmental claims in a centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit. That unit establishes case reserves on individual claims based on the facts and circumstances known at a given point in time, which are supplemented by IBNR reserves. "Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is difficult because these claims have delayed and inconsistent reporting patterns. In addition, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical reserve assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal legislative changes. Limiting our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims are (i) the fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that we introduced in 2007, and (ii) the Insurance Services Office, Inc.'s Total Pollution Exclusion that was introduced in the mid-1980s. Prior to the mid-1980s, we primarily wrote Standard Personal Lines, which has also limited our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KF92An ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Technologies plc is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and legal proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. "On June 18, 2020, Aldrich and Murray filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray. As a result of the Chapter 11 filings, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich and Murray have been stayed due to the imposition of a statutory automatic stay applicable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. In addition, at the request of Aldrich and Murray, the Bankruptcy Court has entered an order temporarily staying all asbestos-related claims against the Trane Companies that relate to claims against Aldrich or Murray (except for asbestos-related claims for which the exclusive remedy is provided under workers' compensation statutes or similar laws). On August 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law and order declaring that the automatic stay applies to certain asbestos related claims against the Trane Companies and enjoining such actions. As a result, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich, Murray and the Trane Companies remain stayed. "The goal of these Chapter 11 filings is to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos-related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray through court approval of a plan of reorganization that would create a trust pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, establish claims resolution procedures for all current and future asbestos-related claims against Aldrich and Murray and channel such claims to the trust for resolution in accordance with those procedures. Aldrich and Murray intend to seek an agreement with representatives of the asbestos claimants on the terms of a plan for the establishment of such a trust. "Prior to the Petition Date, predecessors of each of Aldrich and Murray had been litigating asbestos-related claims brought against them. No such claims have been paid since the Petition Date, and it is not contemplated that any such claims will be paid until the end of the Chapter 11 cases. "From an accounting perspective, the Company no longer has control over Aldrich and Murray as of the Petition Date as their activities are subject to review and oversight by the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, Aldrich and its wholly-owned subsidiary 200 Park and Murray and its wholly-owned subsidiary ClimateLabs were deconsolidated as of the Petition Date and their respective assets and liabilities were derecognized from the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. Amounts derecognized in 2020 primarily related to the legacy asbestos-related liabilities and asbestos-related insurance recoveries and $41.7 million of cash." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/41tCcZf ********* 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 ***