/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230306.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 6, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 47
Headlines
ACCELLION INC: Girard, et al., Appointed as Lead Class Counsel
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Bid for Conditional Certification Granted
AKORN PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Bankruptcy, Faces Lay-offs' Suit
ALEX DOE: Birmingham, et al., Seek Class Certification
ALFON PROTECTION: Hernandez Seeks Clarification of Feb. 3 Order
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial for Antitrust Suit Set for June 2024
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial for Snow Suit Set for July 2024
AMC NETWORKS: Faces Ickes Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
APPLE INC: Tracks Website Users' Data, Class Action Suit Says
AUDIBLE INC: GUE Bid to Seal Reply Memorandum Temporarily OK'd
BAI WEI LLC: Huang Seeks FLSA Collective Action Certification
BANK OF AMERICA: Happy Puppy Sues Over Improper Banking Practices
BIMBO BAKERIES: Bradby Sues Over Mislabeled Cake Products
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Hernandez Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
BLUE CROSS: Seeks to Decertify Class in C.P. ERISA Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Class Cert Response Deadline Extended to March 10
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Indigenous Women Suit Over Abortions
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Clarify Order in Rowan Class Action
BRYAN COLLIER: Court Tosses Lumsden Class Status Bid
BRYAN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Melendez Alleges
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Initial Case Management Order Entered
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Securities Class Suit
COBHAM ADVANCED: Scheduling Order Entered in Wightman Class Suit
CONSENSUS CLOUD: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Skrandel Files Bid for Class Certification
CQ AUTO REPAIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garces Suit Alleges
CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Court OK's $362.5K Class Deal in Salone Suit
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Seeks Denial of Warren Bid for Class Status
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Seeks Hearing Date on Class Cert Denial Bid
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies Bid to Strike in Batis Class Suit
EPIC GAMES: Court Rejects Appeal, Fortnite Lawsuit to Proceed
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Continued Sealing of Certain Materials OK'd
FORD MOTOR: Bid for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Denied
GATEWAY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Woodhams Suit Seek Class Certification
GRAND WAILEA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bolos Alleges
GRAND WAILEA: Misclassifies Spa, Salon Workers, Suit Alleges
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Entered in Bermudez Class Suit
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Discovery & Scheduling Order Extended in Giguere
HONOLULU, HI: Hayslip Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
I.C. SYSTEM: Weber Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
ILLINI PRECAST: Class Action Settlement in Jimenez Gets Approval
INMAR BRAND: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
INSPIRATO INCORPORATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Set April 11
INVESTORTEK HOLDINGS: Weaver Must File Class Cert Bid by August 2
JOSE GRACIA: Court Certifies Gonzalez-Rodriguez Collective Action
JVK OPERATIONS: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Denial of Class Cert. Bid Recommended
KRYSTAL KLEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arredondo Suit Alleges
LABORATORY CORP: Allowed Limited Redactions of Confidential Info
LANDSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dineen Says
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Tosses Renewed Bid for Class Decertification
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Hearing
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Files Bid for Class Certification
LITTLER MENDELSON: Tex. App. Affirms Dismissal of New Tech's Claims
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
MATERNAL & FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Adkins Alleges
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Barton v. Mattel
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Cuddy RPNS Suit
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Drover-Mundy Suit
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Hanson RPNS Suit
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Kimmel RPNS Suit
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mesa v. Enloe Medical
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mitchell v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mortensen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Peterson v. Allina
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Roth v. Blackbaud
MDL 3055: Seirafi Case Transferred to District of New Jersey
METROPOLITAN LIFE: McHugh Suit Seeks Class Certification
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Rezendes Liability Suit
MR. GRADE "A" INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cano Suit Alleges
MUSTANG FUEL: Scheduling Order in Wake Energy Class Suit Entered
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Sought
NAVA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Gray Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEW YORK, NY: Payne Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEW YORK, NY: Rolon Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEW YORK, NY: Sierra Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEW YORK, NY: Wood Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bodnar Sues Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
NOVO BUILDING: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vogt Suit
OBI SEAFOODS: Court Tosses Paunovic Bid for Summary Judgment
PAYSIGN INC: District of Nevada Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Collective Cert Order Entered in Carman
PROVIDENT BANCORP: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims
RAISING CANE'S: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Bid OK'd
RELIANT PRO: Initial Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Conditional Class Cert Granted in Vickers
ROLLINS INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ROMEO POWER: Plaintiffs Seeks Class Status in Securities Suit
SAINT LOUIS, MO: Court Won't Amend Case Mgmt. Order in Faulk Suit
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Barbat Sues Over Invasion of Privacy Rights
STREAMLABS LLC: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered
SUTTER HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Sargony Complaint Nixed
TARGET CORPORATION: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered
TGINESIS LLC: Adewol Sues Over Mislabeled Vitamin Products
THRIVE MARKET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ringler Suit Claims
TJAR GROUP CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Alleges
UNION PACIFIC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Grigg Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Over-Length Opposition to Class Cert Bid Tossed.
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: VP Finalist Alleges Gender Discrimination
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered
VALLEJO, CA: Carroll v. Police Dep't. Dismissed With Leave to Amend
VARSITY BRANDS: Jones, et al., Seek Certification of Class Action
VOLTA INC: Faces Belcher Suit Over Proposed Merger Transaction
WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend MCERS Consolidated Suit
WAYNE PROVISION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Alleges
*********
ACCELLION INC: Girard, et al., Appointed as Lead Class Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADALYN BROWN, et al., v.
ACCELLION, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order:
1. appointing Girard Sharp LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP as
Interim Co-Lead Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g)(3); and
2. setting a status conference for April 13, 2023 at 10:00
a.m.
On September 8, 2022, the Court invited counsels for the various
plaintiffs in this consolidated action to file motions to appoint
interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g).
On September 29, 2022, the Court received four separate motions
and, on October 6, 2022, also received responses supporting the
respective applications.
Accellion is a cloud-based software company that offered products
and services for secure file transfers between third parties.
On March 31, 2021, one of the plaintiffs' firms, Ahdoot Wolfson,
moved to consolidate and transfer these cases to the Northern
District of California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EF66jw at no extra charge.[CC]
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Bid for Conditional Certification Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO ONATE JR., et al.,
v. AHRC HEALTH CARE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-LGS-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order
granting the motion for conditional certification and for court
facilitation of notice:
-- The Defendant's objections to the Report are overruled.
The Court has reviewed the rest of the Report, to which
there is no objection, and finds that it is well-reasoned,
thorough, and contains no error, clear or otherwise. The
Report is adopted in full except as modified below.
The following collective is conditionally certified:
"All current and former non-exempt hourly employees and non-
exempt salaried employees who were employed by Defendant on
or after October 5, 2017 (i.e., three years before the
filing of the Complaint), except for (1) employees in
Defendant's Home Health Department and (2) Defendant and
Care Design, their legal representatives, officers,
directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who
has or had a controlling interest in Defendant or Care
Design."
By March 2, 2023, Defendant shall provide the Plaintiffs with the
names, last known physical and email addresses and last known
telephone numbers of all current and former non-exempt hourly
employees and non-exempt salaried employees who were employed by
Defendant on or after October 5, 2017, except for employees in
Defendant's Home Health Department.
The proposed Notice is approved with the following changes: On page
1, in the second bullet, revise to state the definition of the
collective ordered above.
The Plaintiffs shall propose new language to replace the struck
language (or may propose reinserting the original language) and
shall file a letter explaining why the proposed language accurately
describes the consequences of joining the collective in light of a
potential opt-in's status as a "party plaintiff."
The Plaintiff Antonio Onate Jr. asserts claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and purportedly on behalf of himself and all
other non-exempt salaried and hourly workers who are or were
employed by Defendant AHRC Health Care, Inc., on or after October
5, 2017.
Onate alleges that the Defendant failed to pay both non-exempt
salaried and hourly workers the minimum wage and overtime required
by FLSA. Onate has been joined by eleven Opt-In Plaintiffs, all of
whom describe themselves as hourly employees in their
declarations.
The Plaintiffs move for an order:
(1) conditionally permitting them to proceed as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
(2) compelling Defendant to furnish names and contact
information for individuals in the collective and
(3) authorizing Plaintiffs to circulate a Notice of Pendency
and Consent to Join Form to those in the collective.
The action is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis for
general pretrial supervision. On January 5, 2023, Judge Willis
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs'
motion be granted.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IveJym at no extra charge.[CC]
AKORN PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Bankruptcy, Faces Lay-offs' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Vidmar at herald-review.com reports that Akorn
Pharmaceuticals was hit with at least two class action lawsuits on
the same day it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, per court documents
obtained by the Herald & Review.
One of those lawsuits was filed by a group of Decatur employees who
believe Akorn violated federal law by not providing advance notice
of its mass layoffs.
Akorn shocked workers with an abrupt announcement of their
termination and the company's closure. The company laid off an
estimated over 400 employees in Decatur without offering severance
pay or extended health insurance coverage.
The plaintiffs in the Illinois lawsuit, filed in a federal court in
Urbana, allege that this action violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The WARN Act
requires employers with 100 or more full-time employees to provide
60 days notice of pending plant closures or mass layoffs.
The four plaintiffs are seeking all damages available to them under
the law, including wages and accrued benefit pay they claim the
company failed to pay due to the lack of 60 days' notice.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all individuals across the U.S.
who suffered an employment loss due to the Feb. 22 layoffs.
According to the lawsuit, all four plaintiffs worked at Akorn's
Decatur production center and had each worked for the company for
at least eight years. They said they were called into a meeting
with all other employees early, when Akorn President and CEO
Douglas Boothe eventually notified them of their termination.
"Mr. Boothe was very clear when addressing Plaintiffs and all other
employees that they would not receive any other severance or
compensation," the lawsuit states.
The Herald & Review previously obtained a recording of Boothe's
statements. Boothe said the company's board and ownership and
management team had "no other alternatives" than to file for
bankruptcy.
"As you all know, last year, we initiated processes to sell the
company. And despite the best efforts from all parties and interest
from multiple potential buyers, the company did not receive an
appropriate bid that would address outstanding liabilities,
including outstanding debt," Boothe said at the time. "The company
owners have just informed us they will not provide the additional
financing required to continue to run the business and search for
alternative options."
Akorn did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the
Herald & Review, including emails to a number of corporate
addresses, calls to its corporate office and a call with its
registered agent, Illinois Corporation Service Company.
In its bankruptcy filings, Akorn presented a financial predicament.
The company estimated it has approximately $500,000,001 to $1
billion in assets but somewhere between 50,001 and 100,000
creditors.
According to the petition, the company believes there will be no
funds available to unsecured creditors after any administrative
expenses are paid.
This isn't the first time Akorn has filed for bankruptcy.
The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2020 but was sold to
its existing lenders later that year. As opposed to the financial
reorganization allowed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Chapter 7
bankruptcy liquidates the debtor's assets and distributes them to
its creditors.
A copy of omnibus resolutions adopted by Akorn's Board of Directors
at a meeting, was submitted by the company as part of its 2023
bankruptcy filings.
According to those resolutions, board members "determined that the
companies do not have sufficient capital to continue their
operations" and determined it was in the best interests of
"stakeholders, creditors, and other interested parties" to
terminate all employees.
The board authorized management to let employees know they were
being terminated in connection with the bankruptcy petitions,
"including the provision of any and all notices that are required
by law or otherwise deemed advisable, including under ‘Warn' or
similar laws, rules, or regulations," the resolutions read.
But multiple former employees across the country think their
terminations did not follow the proper procedures required by law.
An additional class action lawsuit was filed by a New York employee
as part of Akorn's bankruptcy proceedings in a Delaware federal
bankruptcy court. Similar to the Illinois lawsuit, the Delaware
suit was filed on behalf of other similarly situated former
employees and alleges that Akorn violated the federal WARN Act and
various New York state labor laws.
The Delaware plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of 60 days'
pay and ERISA benefits lost due to the alleged violation.
Akorn could still face additional legal battles.
A spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic
Opportunity told the Herald & Review the state will be
investigating Akorn's actions.
"WARN exists in order to coordinate resources and support for
employees impacted by layoffs," the statement read. "Not only did
the company fail to submit a WARN notice to the State, it gave its
hardworking employees only 24 hours notice of permanent layoffs,
which is inconsistent with industry best-practices and lacks basic
consideration for their employees."
The Illinois Department of Labor launched its investigation. If
violations are found, the department said, it will "assess civil
penalties against the company." [GN]
ALEX DOE: Birmingham, et al., Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Birmingham, Roman
Leonov, Steven Hansen, Mitchell Parent, and Jonathan Zarley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Alex Doe, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-23472-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certify the case as a class action with the following class
definition:
"All persons who contributed funds to the RoFx foreign
exchange trading scheme;"
2. Appointing them as Class Representatives;
3. Appointing Class Counsel Holland & Knight and its attorneys
Jose Casal, Warren Gluck, Matthew DiBlasi, Dennis Gonzalez,
and Andrew Balthazor; and
4. Granting further relief that may be just and proper.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant class action on September 29,
2021, and, with the Court's leave, amended their complaint on
February 14, 2022. The Amended Complaint brings nine counts against
numerous Defendants – including common-law fraud (Count III) and
unjust enrichment (Count IX).
The Defendants through alleged fraudulent conduct operated a phony
foreign exchange trading service via RoFx.net. As result of their
actions, they were unjustly enriched by over $75 million of
ill-gotten gains at the expense of the Plaintiffs and many others
in the proposed Class.
The Class members deserve a meaningful opportunity to recover these
unconscionable losses. Certifying the proposed Class will be the
most efficient route to redress this wrong, the Plaintiffs
contend.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 10,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XYapxe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis A. González, Esq.
Jose A. Casal, Esq.
Andrew W. Balthazor, Esq.
Warren E. Gluck, Esq.
Matthew R. DiBlasi, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
E-mail: Dennis.Gonzalez@hklaw.com
Jose.Casal@hklaw.com
Andrew.Balthazor@hklaw.com
Warren.Gluck@hklaw.com
Matthew.DiBlasi@hklaw.com
ALFON PROTECTION: Hernandez Seeks Clarification of Feb. 3 Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO HERNANDEZ,
similarly situated individuals, and other Plaintiff(s), v. ALFON
PROTECTION GUARD SERVICES COMPANY and GUILLERMO ALFONSO, Case No.
1:22-cv-22802-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
clarification of its order entered on February 2, 2023, on
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Representative
Class.
On Jan. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of Representative Class.
On February 2, 2023, the Court entered an order granting in part
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Representative
Class and requiring that the parties:
Alfon Protection is in the Security Guard Service business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQhhlx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON , PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: julisse@saenzanderson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott E. Siverson, Esq.
SIVERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
1150 E. Plant Street, Suite E
Winter Garden, FL 34787
Telephone: (407) 210-6547
E-mail: scottsiverson@gmail.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial for Antitrust Suit Set for June 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology 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 27, 2023, that the jury trial
for the antitrust class suit will start on June 29, 2024.
On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC doing
business as City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to the Company's
alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral
scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a
plaintiff on August 14, 2020.
A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024.
The Company believed the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
it intends to vigorously defend itself.
Align Technology -- https://www.aligntech.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners
used in orthodontics.[BN]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial for Snow Suit Set for July 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology 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 27, 2023, that the jury trial
for Snow antitrust class suit is set to start in July and September
2024.
On May 3, 2021, an individual named Misty Snow brought an antitrust
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly
situated individuals seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
relating to our alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner
and intraoral scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2021 adding new
plaintiffs and various state law claims. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on October 21, 2021.
On March 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.
A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024
for issues related to Section 2 allegations.
A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on September 30,
2024 for issues related to Section 1 allegations.
The Company believed the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend itself.
Align Technology -- https://www.aligntech.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners
used in orthodontics.[BN]
AMC NETWORKS: Faces Ickes Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
TRISHA ICKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMC NETWORKS INC., doing business as AMC+,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00803 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023)
alleges Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in unlawful disclosure of the Plaintiff's, the Nationwide
Class members', and the California Subclass members' personally
identifiable information, including information that identifies a
person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or
services, to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., and the Defendant's retention of records containing
PII concerning the Plaintiff and the California Retention Class
members.
The Defendant discloses the specific videos its consumers have
requested or obtained to Meta, which owns the social networking
website and app Facebook. The Defendant discloses this information
to Facebook using the Meta Pixel, a snippet of programming code The
Defendant chose to install on its website that sends information
about its users to Facebook. In this case, the information shared
with Facebook includes the consumer's Facebook ID coupled with the
title of the video that the consumer requested or obtained on the
Defendant's website.
AMC NETWORKS INC. operates as a holding company which produces
independent films and original programming through its
subsidiaries. The Company broadcasts and distributes its content on
television, through online streaming services and on mobile
platforms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
APPLE INC: Tracks Website Users' Data, Class Action Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KTHV, a television station in Little Rock, Arkansas, is reporting
that an Arkansas law firm claims that Apple has failed to prevent
the unwanted tracking of people, despite warnings from domestic
violence advocates.
Wh Law, who has locations in Little Rock, Conway, Jonesboro and
Fayetteville, is part of a national class action lawsuit that's
suing the tech giant.
Two of the women behind the lawsuit claim that Apple negligently
failed to prevent this kind of tracking, despite warnings from
domestic violence advocates last year.
They're seeking damages after becoming victims of stalking. In
addition, they want a court order stopping Apple from releasing
these types of products. [GN]
AUDIBLE INC: GUE Bid to Seal Reply Memorandum Temporarily OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order temporarily granting Plaintiffs motion for leave
to seal their Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion
for Class Certification (and exhibits).
Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that
allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of
spoken word content.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xVODQ8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Andrei Rado, 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
arado@milberg.com
lbelew@milberg.com
- and -
Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
Christopher Bagley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 287-5037
E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
cbagley@farrin.com
BAI WEI LLC: Huang Seeks FLSA Collective Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YE MING HUANG on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BAI WEI LLC
d/b/a Bai Wei, Case No. 2:22-cv-03618-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA");
2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
first and last name, last known address with apartment
number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
dates of employment and position of:
"ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time from September 9, 2019
(three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the
date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and
Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide
the name list, whichever is later;"
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
published in English, and Spanish; and
9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this
suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the
Opt-in Period.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 10,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EGBXk1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
BANK OF AMERICA: Happy Puppy Sues Over Improper Banking Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAPPY PUPPY LA, INC.; BRANDAMIZE, LLC; and AURORA ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01354 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in order to increase
the number and amount of Paycheck Protection Program. Loans it
originated, Bank of America marketed the program to small business
owners in a deceptive and misleading way. For example, Bank of
America knew, or should have known, that the SBA would only approve
forgiveness of loans to business owners that used PPP Loans to pay
retained employees, not 1099 employees.
Nevertheless, Bank of America marketed PPP Loans as a way for small
businesses to borrow money to pay independent contractors. Despite
the duty to act in good faith in originating the loans, the bank
turned a blind eye to payroll requirements and uniformly misled
applicants regarding the applicability of payments to 1099 workers.
Making matters worse, Bank of America compounded its deception by
resorting to high-pressure sales strategies to convince small
businesses, to inflate the amount of their PPP Loans, even in cases
where 1099 workers were not on the payroll, asserts the suit.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins,Esq.
Valerie L. Savran, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
vls@mccunewright.com
-and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, APC
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
Email: ejk@mccunewright.com
-and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
-and -
Cristina M. Pierson, Esq.
KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
500 N. Federal Hwy., Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 522-6601
Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
cmp@kulaw.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Bradby Sues Over Mislabeled Cake Products
---------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE BRADBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00522 (D. Md., Feb. 26, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant manufactures and sells a mislabeled "All Butter" cake
purporting to get its entire butter taste from butter under the
Entenmann's brand.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website tells
purchasers the "All Butter" cake has "the rich taste of pure
butter. However, the labeling is misleading because the "rich taste
of pure butter" is derived in part from artificial flavoring, not
disclosed on the front label.
The Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she would have paid
had she known that "All Butter" was false and misleading or would
not have purchased it, says the suit.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. provides bakery products. The Company
wholesales and distributes breads, rolls, chips, tortillas,
cookies, pies, cakes, pastries, doughnuts, croutons, and other
bakery products. Bimbo Bakeries USA serves customers in the United
States. [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
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomarin Pharmaceutical 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 27, 2023, that the
Company will continue to defend itself from a securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On October 22, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
current and prior Chief Financial Officers, and its President of
Worldwide Research & Development in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
alleges that it made materially false or misleading statements
regarding BMN 307 by purportedly failing to disclose information
about BMN 307’s safety profile, and by purportedly overstating
BMN 307’s clinical and commercial prospects. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs.
The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel on January 10,
2022. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 25, 2022.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
25, 2022.
On January 19, 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
On February 21, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice at plaintiffs' request.
Plaintiffs filed a notice indicating that they plan to appeal the
court's January 19, 2023 order.
The Company believes that the claims have no merit and it intends
to vigorously defend this action.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company
based in California.
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Hernandez Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE'S INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00519-BPG (D.M.D., Feb. 24, 2023) alleges
violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Ac.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is engaged in wiretapping
the electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.bloomingdales.com. The Defendant procures third-party vendors,
such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on
its website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet
browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website
visitor's electronic communications with its website, including
their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, such as text being
entered into an information field or text box, URLs of web pages
visited, and other electronic communications in real-time.
These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code
at Bloomingdale's request. Defendant's procurement of the Session
Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results
is the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each
visitor to the Bloomingdale's website for the entire duration of
their website interaction, the suit alleges.
BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC. operates as a department store. The Company
offers products such as blazers, dress shirts, pants, shorts, tops,
shoes, handbags and briefcase, jewelry and accessories, sunglasses,
watches, and apparel for kids. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
-and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington St.
Suite 1240
Chicago IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
BLUE CROSS: Seeks to Decertify Class in C.P. ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.P., by and through his
parents, Patricia Pritchard and Nolle Pritchard; and PATRICIA
PRITCHARD, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
3:20-cv-06145-RJB (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant files motion to
decertify the class.
The Court should vacate the certification order and deny
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
Finally, the class as currently certified would unduly and
disproportionately burden BCBSIL. Employers could easily avoid any
injunction by the Court by replacing BCBSIL with any of BCBSIL's
many competitors, including all the major national, for-profit
insurers such as Aetna, Cigna, United, other Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association licensees, and others.
While BCBSIL itself would bear the full burden of any injunction,
the injunction would actually benefit BCBSIL's competitors by
allowing them to use their ability to enforce the exclusion to take
away BCBSIL's customers, at the same time the injunction provided
the class with no final relief.
The Court must undertake a "balancing of [the] equities" before
issuing an injunction.
Any injunction would disproportionately burden BCBSIL, advantage
BCBSIL's competitors, leave many class members with no remedy, and
therefore would violate the requirements of equity. The Court
should decertify the class for this reason as well.
During oral argument on the parties' summary judgment motions, the
Court asked the Plaintiffs what remedy they seek. Plaintiffs
requested that this Court order BCBSIL to reprocess and pay
previously-denied claims for transgender related services.
On December 12, 2022, the Court issued its Amended Order Certifying
Class and certified a class comprised of all individuals who:
(1) have been, are, or will be participants or beneficiaries
in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) self-funded "group health plan" administered by
BCBSIL during the Class Period and that contains a
categorical exclusion of some or all Gender-Affirming
Health Care services; and
(2) were, are, or will be denied pre-authorization or
coverage of treatment with excluded Gender Affirming
Health Care services.
They seek an order enjoining Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois
from administering or enforcing health benefit plans that
exclude coverage for gender-affirming health care, including
applying or enforcing the plans' exclusions of services for, or
leading to, gender reassignment surgery, and other similar
exclusions during the class period, now and in the future.
The class seeks an order requiring Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Illinois to reprocess denied pre-authorizations and claims for
gender affirming care under the relevant self-funded health care
plans without applying the discriminatory exclusions, and when
medically necessary and meeting the other terms and conditions of
the relevant plans, provide coverage (payment) for those denied
pre-authorizations and claims that were based solely on exclusions
for gender.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EyOC8A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq.
John R. Neeleman, WSBA No. 19752
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 626-7714
Facsimile: (206) 623-6793
E-mail: gpayton@kilpatricktownsend.com
jneeleman@kilpatricktownsend.com
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
3101 WESTERN AVENUE STE 350
SEATTLE, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
- and -
Jennifer C Pizer, Esq.
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC
4221 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE 280
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 382-7600
E-mail: jpizer@lambdalegal.org
- and -
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Esq.
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC. (NY)
120 Wall Street, 19th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 809-8585
E-mail: ogonzalez-pagan@lambdalegal.org
BLUE DIAMOND: Class Cert Response Deadline Extended to March 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order granting Blue Diamond
Growers' unopposed motion for extension:
-- The deadline to respond to the class-certification motion
is extended to March 10, 2023.
Blue Diamond is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zg6blK at no extra charge.[CC]
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Indigenous Women Suit Over Abortions
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser at vancouversun.com reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the B.C. government on
behalf of Indigenous women subjected to coerced sterilizations or
abortions.
The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court says that before 1973, the
practice of sterilizing a person in the absence of their informed
consent was expressly sanctioned in the province under the Sexual
Sterilization Act.
It claims that since the act was repealed in 1973 after being in
effect for 40 years, the practice of coerced sterilizations for
Indigenous women has continued.
"Coerced sterilization and abortion involving Indigenous women was,
and remains, a form of sexism and genocide -- a practice directed
at eradicating Indigenous people and their cultures," says the
suit.
The suit claims that the B.C. government was complicit in creating
an atmosphere of institutional and systemic racism in provincially
funded and regulated hospitals, and coerced sterilization was
implicitly and explicitly condoned, encouraged, authorized and
performed.
"The province willfully and knowingly failed to address the
widespread practice of coerced sterilization of Indigenous women in
British Columbia," it says.
The forced practices in hospitals have deprived Indigenous women of
fundamental choices guaranteed to all Canadians with respect to
reproductive capacity and have had a "traumatic and destructive"
effect on the health, family relationships and culture of
Indigenous women and communities in the province, the suit adds.
Lorraine Davis, a member of the Penticton Indian Band, and
Stephanie Roy, a member of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, are the two
representative plaintiffs.
Davis, 61, says in the suit that in 1983 she was 21 years old and
pregnant with her second son when she was scheduled to deliver the
baby by caesarean section at Campbell River Hospital.
But moments before her surgery was to begin, Davis says she was
presented with paperwork authorizing a "tubal ligation" -- a
surgical procedure for female sterilization commonly known as
having one's tubes tied.
Davis, who lives in Campbell River, says she signed the papers
without knowing what she was signing and after having received no
prior explanation or medical advice about sterilization.
Following the delivery of her child, several weeks passed before
she began to realize and remember what had happened and she
suffered severe post-partum depression.
When she and her husband later wished to have another child, they
were unable to do so because of the sterilization, which caused her
feelings of pain, anger and trauma.
"So often it feels like you're alone when you have been coerced
into sterilization, something I never wanted and never expected,"
she said in a statement. "It has been many years and I'm glad that
our voice is about to be heard."
Roy, 41, says that in about 1998 or 1999, she was a teenager and
pregnant with her first child and was scheduled to undergo an
abortion at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, having felt pressured to have
an abortion by her boyfriend, her mother and the hospital's
attending doctor.
When she advised the medical professionals she didn't want an
abortion and had changed her mind, her pleas went unheeded and she
was held down by medical staff and had a mask put on her face,
rendering her unconscious, she says.
She says when she woke up, her baby was gone.
"People in Canada need to know their history, the good and the
bad," she said in a statement. "The province of British Columbia
participated and supported a program aimed at taking away the
reproductive rights of Indigenous people, including my own rights
as an Indigenous woman."
Angela Bespflug, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement
that the case was about reproductive rights and Indigenous rights.
"Historically, British Columbia has participated in programs aimed
at controlling and assimilating Indigenous women. The province's
promotion of forced and coerced sterilization and abortion was
consistent with, and a manifestation of, these assimilationist
policies."
Bespflug estimated that the number of class members is in the low
hundreds, and that damages that might be paid out are likely in the
range of $200,000 to $500,000 per class member.
In an email, a spokesman for the attorney-general's ministry said
that because the matter is before the courts, there would be no
comment. [GN]
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Clarify Order in Rowan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
Pierce requests the Court clarify or confirm that, should Plaintiff
disclose a new expert and produce his or her report on Feb. 27,
2023.
Pierce has 30 days (or until March 29, 2023) to submit a rebuttal
expert report to respond to the newly disclosed expert
(only).
Pierce states that the Plaintiff's recently secured extension of
time to disclose a new expert (4.5 months after the original
deadline) should not preclude Pierce's ability serve a rebuttal
expert report 30 days thereafter.
Accordingly, in light of the new expert report deadline allowing
Plaintiff to submit additional affirmative expert witnesses by
February 27, 2023, Pierce requests the Court clarify that Pierce is
permitted to serve a rebuttal expert report 30 days later—or by
March 29, 2023.
On January 13, 2023, over 4.5 months after the expert disclosure
deadline, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of
time to disclose an additional (or third) affirmative expert.
Plaintiff previously disclosed two affirmative experts by the
September 2, 2022 deadline, but no doubt realizing Plaintiff cannot
meet his burden for class certification, he is now seeking to pull
a rabbit out of a hat with a new expert.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z1NPFp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ramon Dapena, Esq.
Iván J. Lladó, Esq.
MORELL CARTAGENA
& DAPENA
San Juan, PR 00908
Telephone: (787) 723-1233
Facsimile: (787) 723-8763
E-mail: ramon.dapena@mbcdlaw.com
ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com
- and -
Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
Kayla L. Pragid, Esq.
Lisa Kohring, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 743-6900
Facsimile: (415) 743-6910
E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com
kayla.pragid@hklaw.com
lisa.kohring@hklaw.com
BRYAN COLLIER: Court Tosses Lumsden Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND E. LUMSDEN V.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00011-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Alan D Albright entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of class action including a request for
appointment of counsel.
Although Plaintiff has raised several legal questions common to a
number of individuals, each individual has his own unique facts and
circumstances. In addition, the resolution of the issues raised in
this case is extremely impractical in the
context of a class action.
Also, some of the claims asserted must be raised in individual
actions. As such, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing
commonality under Rule 23(a).
Even though there are common issues of law and fact present in this
case, it is quite apparent that the Plaintiff cannot represent the
positions of all the inmates confined in
TDCJ-CID because the factual position in each case is different and
Plaintiff lacks standing to sue for many of the claims he raises.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zqs5T5 at no extra charge.[CC]
BRYAN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Melendez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERMAN YOVANY BONILLA MELENDEZ; and SANTOS URBINA PORTILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BRYAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.; BRENDA YANET
LANDAVERDE-DIAZ; and AMADEO SANTOS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00244 (E.D.
Va., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Melendez was employed by the Defendants as construction
worker.
BRYAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. is a premier Colorado contractor for
commercial builds, renovations, multi-family housing, and Federal
construction. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540A Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com
- and -
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd. Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Initial Case Management Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TABITHA FULTON,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P. and CENTER ONE, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00823-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered
an initial case management order as follows:
a) Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. March 1, 2023
P. 26(a) shall be made on or before:
b) Additional parties will be joined in April 8, 2023
this matter on or before:
c) Pleadings shall be amended by: April 8, 2023
d) ESI discovery: May 15, 2023
e) Motion for collective action June 1, 2023
treatment:
f) Memorandum in opposition to July 1, 2023.
collective action treatment:
g) Reply in support of collective July 15, 2023.
action treatment:
Capital Management offers a full suite of professional collection
and customized recovery services for creditors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KB7zes at no extra charge.[CC]
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab Corp. 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 Crago securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and
alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS
Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated
CS&Co's duty to seek best execution.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit
and have been vigorously contesting the lawsuit.
After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30,
2021, and in a decision on October 27, 2021, the court denied the
motion and held that certification of a class action is
inappropriate.
Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied.
On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification and defendants moved to compel plaintiffs' case to
arbitration.
On February 2, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion, stayed
the case pending the outcome of arbitration, and denied plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification as moot.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company.[BN]
COBHAM ADVANCED: Scheduling Order Entered in Wightman Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WIGHTMAN, on
behalf of himself and for all other current and former aggrieved
employees, v. COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-01784-TWR-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel E. Butcher
entered an order granting joint motion to continue discovery
dispute deadline and scheduling order deadlines and
amended scheduling order:
Event Deadline/Date
Plaintiff's Deadline to file Motion Jun. 13, 2023
for Class Certification:
MSC Briefs: Jun. 6, 2023
Mandatory Settlement Conference: Jun. 26, 2023,
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Jul. 11, 2023
Expert Witness Designations: Jul. 11, 2023
Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Jul. 25, 2023
Designations:
Expert Witness Disclosures: Aug. 24, 2023
Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Sep. 26, 2023
Disclosures:
Cobham is a leading provider of mission critical electronic
solutions for the United States aerospace and defense industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IYbG2Q at no extra charge.[CC]
CONSENSUS CLOUD: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Consensus Cloud Solutions, Inc. CCSI resulting from
allegations that Consensus Cloud Solutions may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Consensus Cloud Solutions securities you
may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of
investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12425 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 22, 2023, after trading hours,
Consensus Cloud Solutions announced that "as a result of the
unintentional errors noted [below], the audit committee (the 'Audit
Committee') of the board of directors of the Company reached a
determination to restate its unaudited financial statements for the
three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2022." The
"unintentional errors" were "primarily relating to (i) to a legacy
accounting practice, inherited from the spin transaction in its
SoHo business that grossed up revenue by $1.9 million and $5.3
million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30,
2022, respectively, with a corresponding offset to bad debt expense
('SoHo Error') and (ii) the timing of revenue recognition of $2.2
million and $2.5 million for the three and nine month periods ended
September 30, 2022, respectively, which after review, the Company
has concluded should be reclassified as deferred revenue ('Deferred
Revenue Error')."
On this news, Consensus Cloud Solutions' stock price fell $12.58,
or 21%, to close at $46.92 per share on February 23, 2023. It then
fell a further $2.76, or 5.8%, on February 24, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Skrandel Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SKRANDEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situated, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826-AMC (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Florida class for the his Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), breach of express
warranty, and breach of implied warranty claims;
2. certifying the National Class for Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim;
3. appointing him as Class Representative for the
Classes;
4. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel for the
Classes; and
5. directing that notice be sent to the certified Classes,
together with any further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
The crux of liability here is determined by interpretation of the
uniform "Free Replacement" warranty language on the Interstate
Battery labels, and damages will be determined by simple formulas.
On this record, the case is ideal for class treatment, the
Plaintiff contend.
While the merits of his claims are not at issue at this stage,
Costco admitted in its Amended Answer to his Class Action Complaint
that the he was wrongfully charged for his replacement battery, and
that Class members should not have paid any out-of-pocket cost for
replacement of an Interstate Battery under the warranty, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):
"All Costco members, persons or entities that purchased an
Interstate-branded battery with the words "Free Replacement"
on the label (the "Interstate Batteries") at a Costco
location in the State of Florida who: (a) returned the
Interstate Battery to Costco within the warranty period, and
(b) incurred an out-of-pocket cost to obtain a replacement
Interstate-branded battery within the warranty period (the
"Florida Class"); and
"All Costco members, persons or entities in the United States
(including its Territories and the District of Columbia) that
purchased an Interstate-branded battery with the words "Free
Replacement" on the label (the "Interstate Batteries") at a
Costco location who: (a) returned the Interstate Battery to
Costco within the period, and (b) incurred an out-of-pocket
cost to obtain a replacement Interstate-branded battery
within the warranty period (the "National Class").
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint him as Class
Representative and his counsel as Class Counsel, and direct the
parties to submit a notice plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c).
Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores (warehouse club).
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRzIGx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
Geoffrey Stahl, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
CQ AUTO REPAIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garces Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO GARCES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CQ AUTO REPAIR SHOP INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01388 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Garces was employed by the Defendants as mechanic's
assistant.
CQ AUTO REPAIR SHOP INC. is an auto repair shop located at East
Hampton, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Credit Suisse Group AG. (NYSE:CS) resulting from
allegations that Credit Suisse may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Credit Suisse securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12 359 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq.
toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 9, 2023, Credit Suisse reported
that clients had withdrawn over $119.6 billion in the last three
months of 2022, exceeding market expectations. On this news, the
price of Credit Suisse ADR's fell over 15.6%. On February 21, 2023,
Reuters published an article entitled "Exclusive: Credit Suisse
chairman's comments draw scrutiny from financial watchdog-sources."
The article stated that the Swiss financial regulator was probing
"the extent to which Credit Suisse's Chairman, and other Credit
Suisse representatives were still withdrawing funds when he said in
media interviews that outflows had stopped." In early December,
2022, Credit Suisse's Chairman,
Axel Lehmann, had said in media interviews that outflows had
"completely flattened out", "partially reversed," and "basically
stopped."
On this news, the price of Credit Suisse ADR's fell as much as 4%
in intra-day trading before closing down 3.3% at $2.92 on February
21, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition.
Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class
actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm
represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative
litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities
class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Court OK's $362.5K Class Deal in Salone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the parties' joint
motion for approval of their $362,500 Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action settlement agreement and dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice in the lawsuit styled GARY
SALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:21 CV 1151 RWS (E.D. Mo.).
Plaintiff Gary Salone is a former maintenance employee of
Defendants Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield,
Inc. (collectively, "Cushman & Wakefield"). Salone filed this
lawsuit against Cushman & Wakefield on Jan. 29, 2021, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated employees, alleging violations
of the FLSA and Ohio's wage laws. Salone claims that Cushman &
Wakefield failed to properly pay their maintenance employees
overtime wages for work performed during unpaid meal breaks. Salone
also claims that Cushman & Wakefield failed to maintain accurate
records.
On Jan. 13, 2022, Judge Sippel conditionally certified a FLSA
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The
conditionally certified collective action includes all current and
former hourly non-exempt maintenance employees of Cushman &
Wakefield who, during the three years preceding Jan. 13, 2022, and
continuing through the final disposition of this case, worked at
least forty hours in a workweek and had a meal-break deduction
applied to their compensable hours.
The term "Plaintiffs," as used in this Memorandum and Order, refers
to the individuals identified in the document attached to the
parties' settlement agreement as Exhibit B, which consists of 287
individuals. Salone is included in this total number of
individuals.
Notice was issued to putative collective members, and following the
notice period, a total of 287 individuals elected to opt-in and
join the FLSA collective action. The parties later participated in
mediation and reached a settlement agreement.
In their motion, the parties request that Judge Sippel approve
their settlement agreement and dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. The parties also request that Judge Sippel approve an
award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel; approve
reimbursement to the Plaintiffs' counsel of their litigation
expenses; approve a service award to Salone; and retain
jurisdiction over this case to enforce the settlement agreement, if
necessary.
Judge Sippel holds that the parties' settlement agreement will be
approved. The settlement agreement arises out of litigation that
involves a bona fide dispute. The parties engaged in substantial
motion practice in this case, contesting key issues, including the
fundamental issue of whether Cushman & Wakefield's maintenance
employees were properly compensated for missed or interrupted meal
breaks. The parties also participated in extensive mediation before
a neutral, third-party mediator. Under these circumstances, Judge
Sippel finds that the litigation in this case involves a bona fide
dispute.
After considering the totality of the circumstances, Judge Sippel
also finds, among other things, that the parties' settlement
agreement is fair and equitable to all parties. Under these
circumstances, Judge Sippel finds no basis to doubt that the
parties' settlement agreement is a fair and equitable resolution of
a bona fide dispute.
The request of the Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees will be approved, Judge Sippel holds. The Plaintiffs' counsel
request that the Court approve an award of attorneys' fees equal to
one-third of the settlement amount, which is $362,500, for a fee
award of $120,833.33. Judge Sippel finds that this agreed-upon
award of attorneys' fees is fair and reasonable. The request of the
Plaintiffs' counsel for reimbursement of their litigation expenses,
which totaled $18,299.66, will also be approved as fair and
reasonable under the circumstances.
Judge Sippel also holds that the requested service award of $7,500
to Salone will be approved. The Plaintiffs' counsel state in their
declarations that Salone assisted them in each step of this case up
to and including the reaching of a settlement that fairly and
adequately compensates collective members for alleged unpaid wages.
In light of Salone's participation and the benefit that other
collective members received as a result, the Judge finds that the
requested service award to Salone is fair and reasonable.
Judge Sippel finds that the settlement agreement reflects a fair
and equitable resolution of a bona fide dispute, that the requested
award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel is fair and
reasonable, that reimbursement to the Plaintiffs' counsel of their
litigation expenses is fair and reasonable, and that the requested
service award to Salone is fair and reasonable. For these reasons,
the parties' motion will be granted.
Accordingly, Judge Sippel grants the parties' joint motion for
approval of their FLSA collective action settlement agreement and
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The parties'
settlement agreement is approved. The request of the Plaintiffs'
counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses is approved. The requested service award to
Plaintiff Gary Salone is approved.
Judge Sippel further ordered that the claims of the Plaintiffs will
be dismissed with prejudice. The Court will retain jurisdiction
over this case to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement, if necessary. A separate Judgment in accordance with
this Memorandum and Order will be entered on this same date.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 9,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3336ha2d from
Leagle.com.
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Seeks Denial of Warren Bid for Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY J. WARREN v.
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY INVESTMENTS LLC, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00050-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order denying the Plaintiff's request to certify the case as a
class action.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IU5kBO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert L. Vaughn, Jr., Esq.
VAUGHN LAW FIRM, PLC
1433 New Monrovia Road
Colonial Beach, Virginia 22443
Telephone: (703) 689-2100
E-mail: rvaughn@vaughnlawfirmplc.com
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Seeks Hearing Date on Class Cert Denial Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY J. WARREN v.
DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY INVESTMENTS LLC, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00050-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Defendants Dockside Grimley
Investments LLC and Jordan Grimley ask the Court to enter an order
setting a hearing date on their motion to deny class
certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SzinM5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert L. Vaughn, Jr., Esq.
VAUGHN LAW FIRM, PLC
1433 New Monrovia Road
Colonial Beach, Virginia 22443
Telephone: (703) 689-2100
E-mail: rvaughn@vaughnlawfirmplc.com
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies Bid to Strike in Batis Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion to strike in
the lawsuit styled ODETTE R. BATIS, Plaintiff v. DUN & BRADSTREET
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01924-MMC (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is Defendant Dun & Bradstreet Holdings' ("D&B")
"Special Motion," filed June 30, 2022, to Strike Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425.16 and, in the Alternative,
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Plaintiff Odette Batis has filed opposition, to which D&B
has replied.
D&B owns and operates the "D&B Hoovers" database, which contains
the names, personal information, and personas of hundreds of
millions of individuals, including tens of millions of
Californians. D&B sells the D&B Hoovers database to salespeople and
marketers, who use it to send personalized sales and marketing
communications to the individuals, who appear in the D&B Hoovers
database.
According to Batis, D&B advertises and promotes the D&B Hoovers
database by publicly displaying profiles of the Plaintiff on the
D&B Hoovers website. Specifically, during a free trial of the D&B
Hoovers database, which "typically" lasts for twenty-four hours, a
user can search the D&B Hoovers website and see Batis's profile,
comprised of her name, job title, place of work, and telephone
number, as well as the identities of her work colleagues and
Triggers. Users, who attempt to download Batis's profile during the
free trial or who attempt to view her profile after the free trial,
are informed they must purchase a subscription.
Ms. Batis concedes she may have consented to the posting of her
name on the website of the company for which she works, or on a
professional networking site, but alleges she did not give consent
to D&B to use her name, personal information, or persona in any
way, and was seriously distressed to discover that D&B is using her
name and personal information to advertise subscriptions to the D&B
Hoovers website without her consent.
Based on these allegations, Batis asserts, on her own behalf and on
behalf of a putative California class, the following causes of
action: (1) Violation of California Right of Publicity Statute,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344, (2) Tort of Appropriation of a Name or
Likeness, and (3) California Unfair Competition Law.
By the instant motion, D&B seeks, pursuant to Section 425.16 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure, an order striking the class
action complaint in its entirety, or, in the alternative, pursuant
to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, an order of dismissal.
D&B moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the asserted
ground that Batis does not have standing to bring her claims.
Judge Chesney notes that Batis identifies four alleged injuries:
(1) misappropriation of her intellectual property, specifically,
her name and likeness, (2) unlawful profiting from D&B's
unauthorized use of her persona, (3) invasion of her privacy
rights, and (4) harm to peace of mind.
Judge Chesney finds that Batis has established her alleged injuries
are the sort of harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis
for a lawsuit in American courts. Accordingly, D&B's motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) will be denied.
D&B moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the asserted
ground that all of Batis's claims fail under state law, and, in
addition, that her publicity and misappropriation claims are barred
by the First Amendment.
Here, contrary to D&B's argument, Judge Chesney says Batis has not
challenged her inclusion in the D&B Hoovers database; she
challenges the use of her name and likeness to advertise
subscriptions to the D&B Hoovers database.
Judge Chesney holds that D&B fails to establish that Batis's common
law misappropriation claim and statutory right of publicity claim
fail under state law. Further, D&B, in arguing Batis' UCL claim
must be dismissed on the same grounds as her other claims, while
providing no additional argument as to the UCL claim, likewise
fails to establish that Batis's UCL claim fails under state law.
D&B also contends that the Plaintiff's publicity and
misappropriation claims are barred by the First Amendment. D&B,
citing De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal. App. 5th 845, 860
(2018), contends D&B Hoovers is a "transformative, expressive work"
in that it takes the raw materials of certain aspects of persona
(business contact information, employer, what industry they work
in, etc.) and adds something new. In that regard, D&B asserts, it
does not merely publish a static listing of a person's business
contact information, but rather curates factual information about
businesses, and publishes that information dynamically in response
to search term queries that organize and reflect the data in
innumerable different ways.
The Court finds dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on First
Amendment immunity is improper at this stage of the proceedings,
citing ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th
Cir. 2014). Accordingly, D&B's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) will be denied.
Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
California's "anti-SLAPP" statute, is intended "to protect
individuals from meritless, harassing lawsuits whose purpose is to
chill protected expression."
Under subsection 425.16(e), an act in furtherance of a person's
right of petition or free speech under the United States or
California Constitution in connection with a public issue includes
four circumstances: (1) any written or oral statement or writing
made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or
any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or
oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under
consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial
body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any
written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the
public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public
interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise
of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right
of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of
public interest.
Here, D&B argues, the Plaintiff's claims arise from speech that
falls under the third and fourth circumstances. The Court is not
persuaded.
Judge Chesney finds that D&B has not demonstrated its
advertisements are, as a matter of law, entitled to protection
under the First Amendment. Consequently, the Court finds D&B has
failed to make a threshold showing that Batis's claims arise from
protected activity. Accordingly, D&B's motion to strike pursuant to
California's anti-SLAPP statute will be denied.
For the reasons set forth in the Order, Judge Chesney rules that
D&B's motion to strike, and, in the alternative, to dismiss the
Complaint is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 9, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4x69rx95 from Leagle.com.
EPIC GAMES: Court Rejects Appeal, Fortnite Lawsuit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Court of Appeal has rejected an Epic Games request to
toss the December decision authorizing a class action that argues
the company's video game Fortnite Battle Royale is too
"addictive."
Quebec Superior Court Justice Sylvain Lussier authorized the
class-action suit and Appeal Court Justice Guy Cournoyer wrote the
decision rejecting the appeal, saying he did not find any errors in
Lussier's judgement.
The case can now move forward.
Three Quebec parents sued the U.S.-based Epic, alleging the game's
creators deliberately designed Fortnite Battle Royal to be "highly
addictive" and that the game was responsible for causing their
children (who are minors) to suffer psychological, physical and
financial harm.
They are seeking damages that will be determined at a later date.
None of the allegations have been proven in court and a court date
will be set soon.
Fortnite's maker was ordered to pay US$520 million to settle
complaints at the end of 2022 surrounding children's privacy and
it's payment methods that duped players into making unintended
purchases, according to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The settlement is split into a $245 million customer refund order
for so-called "dark patterns" and billing practices, and a $275
million fine for collecting personal information on players under
13 without informing their parents.
Dark patterns are deceptive online methods used to pressure players
to do things they didn't intend to do.
"Fortnite's counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button
configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the
press of a single button," the FTC said. "These tactics led to
hundreds of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges for
consumers." [GN]
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ
et al., v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-08010-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein entered an class certification scheduling order as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion to amend the
complaint to add opt-in plaintiffs on or before March 3,
2023.
2. The Defendants shall file any motion to decertify the
collective action on or before March 3, 2023.
3. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion to substitute the
administrator of the Estate of Oscar Garza on or before
May 15, 2023.
4. The parties' proposed summary judgment, cross-summary
judgment and Rule motions are returnable before Judge
Swain.
5. Any motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, also returnable before Judge Swain, shall be filed
within 21 days of the disposition of any summary judgment
motion.
Escobar is a general contractor, specializing in commercial
construction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KHNaVj at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Continued Sealing of Certain Materials OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IWANSKI, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. FIRST PENN-PACIFIC
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-01573-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion for continued sealing of certain materials filed
in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
Defendants' opposition to class certification, and Plaintiffs'
reply in support of class certification.
The redacted and under seal portions of the materials filed in
connection with the class certification briefing, set forth in
Exhibit A to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Continued Sealing, shall remain under seal until further order, and
shall be filed in redacted form and under seal.
First Penn-Pacific offers life and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KGE23c at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Bid for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BEATY; and JESSICA
BEATY, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-05201-TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal
The portion of the Order entered July 8, 2021, a redacted version
of which was filed on July 22, 2021, excluding the testimony of Dr.
Read is amended as follows.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel
of record.
With respect to the Court's denial of class certification, the
Ninth Circuit has already denied plaintiffs' petition pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Nothing has changed since
then, and none of the usual reasons for allowing an interlocutory
appeal are present in this case.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41lA5GS at no extra charge.[CC]
GATEWAY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ALLYSHA RAQUEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATEWAY CARE CENTER, LLC; CPE HR,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03839 (Cal.
Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendant as staff.
GATEWAY CARE CENTER, LLC provides nursing services. The Company
offers assisted living, physical, occupational, speech therapy,
hospice, dementia, tracheostomy, memory, Alzheimer's, and wound
care, as well as provides hip repairs, joint replacement, and
rehabilitation services. Gateway Care Center serves patients in the
state of New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Christina M. Le, Esq.
Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
cle@wilshirelawfirm.com
agrigoryan@wilshirelawfirm.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Woodhams Suit Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS, JOHN
COVELLO, CYNTHIA CARRILLO, OSCAR DE LEON, DANIEL PAUL, ROBERT
TREPPER, and DANIEL UTTERBACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS (US) LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03990-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23;
2. appointing them as class representatives for any certified
class(es); and
3. appointng Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as class counsel
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
GSK is a global biopharma company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IVOKRQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
nathant@hbsslaw.com
GRAND WAILEA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bolos Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE BOLOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND WAILEA A WALDORF ASTORIA RESORT;
WALDORF ASTORIA BEVERLY HILLS; KEVIN B. HAIR AND BEAUTY, LLC;
WALDORF ASTORIA LLC; GW MANAGER LLC; BRE ICONIC GWR OWNER LLC; BRE
HOTELS & RESORTS LLC; JOHN PAUL OLIVER; ALLEN FEDERER; JOSEPH
BERGER; BART SANTIAGO; and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case no.
1:23-cv-00104-JMS-KJM (D. Haw., Feb. 23, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
Plaintiff Bolos was employed by the Defendants as nail technician.
GRAND WAILEA A WALDORF ASTORIA RESORT is a luxury resort owned and
operated by Waldorf Astoria Management LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sandra D. Lynch, Esq.
Lynch Law Offices, LLLC
204 11th Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 312-4913
Facsimile: (808) 490-0490
Email: lynchlawhaw@gmail.com
- and -
Daniel L. Feder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-9476
Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
Email: daniel@dfederlaw.com
GRAND WAILEA: Misclassifies Spa, Salon Workers, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Kehaulani Cerizo at mauinow.com reports that a worker at one of
Maui's largest private employers, Grand Wailea, A Waldorf Astoria
Resort, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging owners of the luxury
hotel giant misclassified hundreds of spa and salon workers,
groundskeepers, facilities maintenance personnel and window washers
as independent contractors in a "fraudulent scheme" to avoid pay
and benefits at two of its landmark hotels, the Grand Wailea and
Beverly Hills Waldorf Astoria.
A spokesperson at Grand Wailea, a Waldorf Astoria Resort, declined
to comment.
"We do not comment on pending litigation," a statement to Maui Now
said.
Maui resident and plaintiff Laurie Bolos has been employed for
decades as a nail technician for defendant Waldorf-Astoria
Management LLC at the Grand Wailea hotel in South Maui.
Bolos, who is represented by attorneys Daniel Feder of California
and Sandra Lynch of Oahu, filed a complaint in Hawai'i U.S.
District Court alleging that employer Waldorf Astoria violated many
federal and state laws in a deliberate attempt to bypass legal
obligations to pay workers a minimum wage and overtime.
The complaint also says the employer illegally circumvented making
federal income tax contributions toward workers' Social Security
and unemployment insurance, while avoiding mandatory health
coverage, temporary disability insurance and workers' compensation
benefits.
"Bolos is believed to be representative of a victimized class of
vulnerable workers, including Native Hawaiian and immigrant
communities, who have been systematically exploited by Waldorf
Astoria and historically reluctant to question their working
conditions out of fear of losing their jobs and suffering further
economic hardship," according to her lawyers.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages,
penalties, and restitution/disgorgement of ill-gotten gains arising
from the corporate and individual defendants' willful violations of
federal and state wage and hours laws and racketeering activities
in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, the complaint said.
Waldorf Astoria is a luxury brand of Hilton hotels with U.S. and
international locations. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Entered in Bermudez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BERMUDEZ, v. HOME
DEPOT, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-05180-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Parties shall negotiate discovery April 10, 2023
protocols by:
-- All fact discovery shall be January 10, 2024
completed by:
-- Expert reports are due by: April 10, 2024
-- Rebuttal expert reports are due May 10, 2024
by:
-- Expert discovery shall be May 28, 2024
completed by:
-- The Plaintiff shall submit a June 27, 2024
motion for class
certification by:
-- The Defendant shall file any August 13, 2024
opposition by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any September 27, 2024
rebuttal by:
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IThjzv at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Discovery & Scheduling Order Extended in Giguere
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giguere v. Homeworks
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-30015 (D. Mass), the Hon.
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order granting joint motion to
extend discovery and scheduling order deadlines.
-- Non-expert discovery, as to the named May 22, 2023
Plaintiff, shall be completed by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion June 21, 2023
for class certification by:
-- The Defendant shall file any July 21, 2023
opposition to the motion for
class certification by:
-- The Plaintiff may file a reply brief August 15, 2023
in support of the motion for
class certification by:
-- A hearing on the motion for September 6, 2023
class certification will be
held on:
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.
HomeWorks Energy is an environmental services company in Boston
Massachusetts.[CC]
HONOLULU, HI: Hayslip Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT M. HAYSLIP, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, v. CITY
AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Case No. 1:22-cv-00410-DKW-WRP (D. Haw.),
the the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the action for purposes of notice
and discovery,
2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff the
contact information for potential collective action class
members within 10 days, and
(3) approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
notice.
The Plaintiff Hayslip filed this action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals, alleging that his employer, the
City and County of Honolulu, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) in three ways.
-- First, that the Defendant failed to correctly calculate
the regular rate of pay when computing FLSA required
overtime payments resulting in lesser payments than
required.
-- Second, that the Defendant failed to pay FLSA required
overtime payments.
-- Third, that the Defendant has untimely paid FLSA required
overtime payments. The Plaintiff moves this Court to
conditionally certify this case as an FLSA collective
action and to order that notice be sent to members of a
class of individuals who (1) are or were eligible for FLSA
overtime by virtue of employment in the City and County
of Honolulu's Department of Emergency Services as
Emergency Medical Technician's and/or Paramedics and (2)
were under and/or uncompensated for their FLSA overtime.
The Defendant employs Plaintiff and putative additional collective
action members as Emergency Medical Technicians and/or Paramedics
within its Department of Emergency Services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41nojM3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
I.C. SYSTEM: Weber Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAVRIEL WEBER, v. I.C.
SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02176-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
John G. Koeltl entered an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IFfuWK at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINI PRECAST: Class Action Settlement in Jimenez Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGUSTIN JIMENEZ, LEOPOLDO
JIMENEZ, GINDER RIVERA LOPEZ, EVERARDO ESTRADA TORRES,
OMAR ARREGUIN NUNEZ, and CHRISTOPHER BUSS, v. ILLINI PRECAST LLC
and CRAIG WEGENBACH, Case No. 2:19-cv-01623-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting the parties'
joint motion for entry of a consent decree approving their
settlement.
The Court grants the parties' joint motion to file the settlement
agreement in redacted form. The Court adopts in part and overrules
in part Magistrate Judge Joseph's R&R on Plaintiffs' fee petition
and consequently grants in part and denies in part the underlying
fee petition.
The Court overrules Defendants' objections to the R&R, and adopts
in part and overrules in part Plaintiffs' objections to the R&R.
The Court grants Plaintiffs' supplemental fee petition.
The Court awards Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees in the
amount of $149,865.00. The Court will not consider any further
supplemental fee petition.
The Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLAS) alleging that Defendants failed to compensate
them for all work performed, including at an overtime rate of pay.
On November 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding additional detail to the allegations in the complaint, and
on January 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to add Plaintiff Christopher Buss.
In August 2022, the parties informed the Court that they had
resolved the action as to Plaintiffs' claims and the matter of
litigation costs.
Illini caters to the precast parking community.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IDXdJf at no extra charge.[CC]
INMAR BRAND: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, v. INMAR
BRAND SOLUTIONS, INC. ("IBS"), Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill.), IBS files a consented motion for extension of time to file
response to motion for class certification through March 23, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed his motion to certify suit as class action on
June 2, 2022. The motion does not contain a memorandum of law in
support as required by Local Rule 7.1.
On June 27, 2022, the Court stayed the Defendant's time to respond
to Plaintiff's motion to certify suit as class action until the
Court could resolve the pending motions to dismiss.
On January 31, 2023, the Court entered an order granting in-part in
denying in-part the pending motions to dismiss.
The Court also directed Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's
motion to certify suit as class action by February 21, 2023.
Inmar develops enterprise software.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ye3vtr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason M. Wenker, Esq.
Christin J. Jones, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1001 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 607-7300
Facsimile: (336) 734-2652
E-mail: jwenker@kilpatricktownsend.com
cjones@kilpatricktownsend.com
-and-
John P. Heil, Jr., Esq.
Bryan J. Vayr, Esq.
HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN , P.C.
300 Hamilton Boulevard
Peoria, IL 61601
Telephone: (309) 676-0400
Facsimile: (309) 676-3374
E-mail: JHeil@heylroyster.com
BVayr@helroyster.com
INSPIRATO INCORPORATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Set April 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Inspirato Incorporated
(NASDAQ: ISPO). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Caribou Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRBU)
Class Period: Pursuant and/or traceable to the November 20, 2020
IPO; Pursuant and/or traceable to the March 18, 2021 SPO; November
20, 2020 - September 19, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 11, 2023
Caribou is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that engages
in the development of genome-edited allogeneic cell therapies for
the treatment of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors in the
U.S. and internationally. The Company is developing, among other
product candidates, CB-010, an allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell
therapy1 that is in a Phase 1 clinical trial, referred to as
"ANTLER", to treat relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin
lymphoma ("r/r B-NHL").
According to Defendants, CB-010 is the first clinical-stage
allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with programmed cell death
protein 1 ("PD-1") removed from the CAR-T cell surface by a
genome-edited knockout of the PDCD1 gene, which purportedly sets
CB-010 apart from other allogeneic CAR-T cells by, inter alia,
improving the "persistence" of antitumor activity.
On July 1, 2021, Caribou filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on July 22, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On July 23, 2021, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Caribou's
common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CRBU". That same day,
Caribou filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Caribou issued 19 million
shares of common stock to the public at the Offering price of
$16.00 per share for proceeds of $282.72 million to the Company,
before expenses, and after applicable underwriting discounts.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
CB-010's treatment effect was not as durable as Defendants had led
investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, CB-010's clinical and
commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
On June 10, 2022, Caribou issued a press release reporting
"[p]ositive" data from the ANTLER Phase 1 clinical trial. Among
other results, Caribou reported that "[a]t 6 months following the
single dose of CB-010, [only] 40% of patients remained in CR
[complete response] (2 of 5 patients) as of the May 13, 2022 data
cutoff date", prompting investor concern over the durability of the
CB-010 treatment.
On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $1.78 per share, or
20.41%, to close at $6.94 per share on June 10, 2022.
Then, on December 12, 2022, Caribou issued a press release
"report[ing] new 12-month clinical data from cohort 1 in the
ongoing ANTLER Phase 1 trial, which [purportedly] show[ed] longterm
durability following a single infusion of CB-010 at the initial
dose level 1 (40x106 CAR-T cells)." Among other results, Caribou
reported that "3 of 6 patients maintained a durable CR at 6 months"
and "2 of 6 patients maintain a long-term CR at the 12 month scan
and remain on the trial", thereby confirming investor fears that
the CB-010 treatment lacked significant durability.
On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $0.81 per share, or 9.03%,
to close at $8.16 per share on December 12, 2022.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, Caribou common stock
continues to trade below the $16.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Caribou's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
For more information on the Caribou class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRBU
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
INVESTORTEK HOLDINGS: Weaver Must File Class Cert Bid by August 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN WEAVER, v.
INVESTORTEK HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01424-GPC-DEB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order granting
the plaintiff's motion to extend deadline for filing a motion for
default judgment and to allow class discovery.
The Court grants the Plaintiff's request for an extension of time
to file a motion for default judgment and to conduct discovery to
obtain evidence sufficient to:
(1) file a Motion for Class Certification and effectuate any
corresponding class notice; and
(2) determine damages prior to entry of final judgment.
The Plaintiff should file their Motion for Class Certification and
Default Judgment on or before August 2, 2023.
The hearing scheduled for February 10, 2023 is hereby vacated.
These courts recognized, and this Court agrees, that it "would be
unjust to prevent the Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the
elements for certification of a class without the benefit of
discovery, due to the Defendant's failure to participate in this
case."
On December 8, 2022, the Plaintiff Jonathan Weaver filed a motion
to extend the deadline for filing a motion for default judgment and
to allow class discovery.
On September 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
Complaint against the Defendant alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent him text messages even
though he "has no relationship Defendant, has no account with the
Defendant, has never provided any phone number to Defendant and has
never consented to Defendant sending any type of communication."
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of three putative
classes:
(1) individuals who received automated text messages from the
Defendant;
(2) individuals who received text messages from the Defendant
while registered on the DNCR; and
(3) individuals who received text messages that did not
properly identify the sender.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief.
InvestorTek is a company that operates in the Real Estate industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kl0tuo at no extra charge.[CC]
JOSE GRACIA: Court Certifies Gonzalez-Rodriguez Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCIA GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
et al., V. JOSE M. GRACIA, et. al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00406-BO
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion and conditionally certifying the
action as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(6) as follows:
-- Reimbursement Collective Action
"Persons who were or will work for one or more of the
defendants as a cook at any time between October 5, 2018
and the date of final judgment in this action, held H-2A
visas,and were not reimbursed for all of their H-2A
related expenses (recruitment fees, travel , visa, hotel ,
meals, and/or border crossing costs) during their first
workweek such that they were paid less than the minimum
wage during that workweek;" and
-- Wage Payment Collective Action
"Persons who were or will work for one or more of the
defendants as cooks and were or will be paid less than the
required minimum wage for the hours worked in one or more
workweeks or who were not paid at the required overtime
wage rate for the hours they performed or will perform
work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek in which they
were not employed in agriculture at any time between
October 5, 2018 and the date of final judgment in this
action."
To the extent the defendants are in possession of or can reasonably
obtain such information, the defendants are hereby ordered to
provide the plaintiffs a computer-readable list containing the
following information regarding the putative action members: full
names, date(s) of employment, employer ID , all known mailing
addresses, all known cell and WhatsApp numbers, passport number,
and date of birth. This production shall be made within two weeks
of the entry of the Order.
The Court authorizes the Notice to plaintiffs' motion for
distribution in English and Spanish to potential opt-in plaintiffs
by United States mail, text, WhatsApp, Facebook, website posting,
and Mexican radio.
The Court orders the defendants to provide the Notice in English
and Spanish to current employees working as cooks with their
paychecks within two weeks of entry of this Order.
The Court orders that the defendants to post the Notice in English
and Spanish at all kitchens and employer-provided housing for H-2A
farmworkers under the ownership or control of any of the defendants
within two weeks of the entry of the Order.
The Court authorizes the Consent to Join Form to plaintiffs'
motion, for distribution to the putative members of the collective
action. The date limiting the preliminary joinder of opt-in
plaintiffs filing Consent to Sue forms shall be six months from the
date on which the complete addresses and names of putative class
members are produced by defendants in accordance with this Order.
The plaintiffs allege the defendants
(1) did not reimburse them for their visa expenses until
after their first week,
(2) paid them for significantly fewer hours than they
worked, and
(3) did not pay them the required overtime rates.
The Plaintiffs seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves
individually and all other similarly situated employees through the
collective action procedure under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kazGGH at no extra charge.[CC]
JVK OPERATIONS: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENIA MONTIEL-FLORES and
ALMANELLY RIVERA ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. JVK OPERATIONS LIMITED and VINOD SAMUEL,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03005-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order decertifying the Plaintiffs' "conditionally
certified" collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), together with such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
JVK Operations is a leading provider of linen and garments laundry
services for healthcare facilities on the East Coast.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y2aGiM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas E. Rowe, Esq.
CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor
East Meadow, NY 11554
Telephone: (516) 296-7000
E-mail: drowe@certilmanbalin.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Denial of Class Cert. Bid Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo
Bell and Robert Shaw, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Stewart D. Aaron recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be denied.
Judge Aaron also recommend that the Defendants' motion to deny
class certification be denied as moot.
The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants Knight-Swift
Transportation Holding, Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC alleging that the Defendants violated the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") by failing to properly compensate them for
off-the-clock work, pay minimum wage, pay overtime compensation for
off-the-clock work, provide spread-of-hours pay and provide
accurate itemized wage statements, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff Hobbs was employed by Swift as an OTR driver from
about May 2019 to March 2020. Although Swift asserts that Hobbs was
assigned to the Syracuse Terminal, Hobbs states that he typically
picked up loads at a Sears distribution center in Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, and made deliveries to various locations, including
New York City and upstate New York.
On October 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in which they seek to certify classes three classes,
as follows:
-- Class A:
"All current and former truck drivers who have been
employed by Defendants while being based out of the
Walmart Dedicated location in Johnstown, New York and/or
the Target Dedicated location in Amsterdam, New York, at
any time from February 17, 2015 until the date of class
notice.
-- Class B:
"All current and former truck drivers who have been
employed by the Defendants while being based out of
Defendants' Syracuse, New York location, at any time from
February 17, 2015 until the date of class notice.
Membership in Class B is limited to time logged as
"sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York State."
-- Class C:
"All current and former truck drivers who have been
employed by Defendants while being based out of a work
location outside of New York State, but who have made at
least one pickup and/or delivery in New York State and
logged sleeper berth time in New York State, at any time
from February 17, 2015 until the date of class notice.
Membership in Class C is limited to time logged as
"sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York State."
The Classes exclude the group of Drivers identified by
Swift's Rule 30(b)(6) witness as being paid hourly,
typically operating a "day cab" truck without a sleeper
berth, and who return home every night.
Swift is one of the largest trucking companies in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Feb. 9, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kqUQAi at no
extra charge.[CC]
KRYSTAL KLEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arredondo Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ANTONIO BARRIENTOS ARREDONDO, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRYSTAL KLEAN HAND CAR
WASH & DETAIL, INC.; LUIS FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No.:
1:23-cv-1131 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Arredondo was employed by the Defendants as car wash
attendants.
KRYSTAL KLEAN HAND CAR WASH & DETAIL, INC. specializes in car
washing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
LABORATORY CORP: Allowed Limited Redactions of Confidential Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, MARY
CARTER, TENA DAVIDSON, ROBERT HUFFSTUTLER, RAMZI KHAZEN, CHAIM
MARCUS, LILY MARTYN, JONAH MCCAY, HOLDEN SHERIFF, VICTORIA SMITH,
MICHELLE SULLIVAN, SHONTELLE THOMAS, JOSEPH WATSON, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order
granting Defendant's motion for limited redactions of certain
confidential information from the transcript of the hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Classheld on November 8, 2022.
The court finds that the factors for sealing the limited portions
of the transcript have been satisfied. As required by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"),
portions of the transcript identifying the diagnostic test
performed for Plaintiffs shall be permanently sealed.
Additionally certain non-public sensitive and confidential
competitive business information concerning
(i) Labcorp's internal costs for specific tests,
(ii) certain proprietary internal processes and procedures
relating to Labcorp's pricing determinations for
specific tests, and
(iii) confidential information regarding Labcorp's billing and
collection rates shall be permanently sealed.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KuMvpW at no extra charge.[CC]
LANDSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dineen Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DINEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDSTAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-50060 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Dineen was employed by the Defendant as operations
coordinator.
LANDSTAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS, INC. offers transportation
services. The Company serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Max Barack, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
6252 N. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 200
Chicago, IL 60659
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Tosses Renewed Bid for Class Decertification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA
HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals , v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY
PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order:
1. The Defendants' renewed motion for class decertification
is denied;
2. The Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 is denied;
3. The Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 is denied without
prejudice;
4. The Defendants are ordered to submit a revised prospective
class member witness list with their expected proffers
within seven days of the date of this order.
The class action lawsuit involves an employment dispute between the
Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke and
Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products
Company.
On March 30, 2020, the Court certified Plaintiffs' claim that
Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call"
during their meal and rest breaks in violation of California law.
The Defendants thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the Court denied on August 11, 2020. On January 14, 2022,
the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, decertification.
On April 29, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' motion on the
ground that genuine issues material fact exist with respect to
numerous factual disputes and that the certification requirements
under Rule 23, particularly the commonality and predominance
requirements, were still satisfied.
Leprino Foods is an American company that produces cheese, lactose,
whey protein and sweet whey.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KDgU5x at no extra charge.[CC]
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANA FARLEY, Individually
and on Behalf of the Class, v. LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a
Nebraska Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.),
the Parties jointly stipulate and agree that the date of the
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be
continued from February 17, 2023, to March 10, 2023.
The Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on
December 16, 2020 and and Benefit filed a motion to dismiss or stay
the case on February 8, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on September
15, 2022, and noticed a hearing date of November 4, 2022.
On September 30, 2022, the Court granted the Parties' Joint
Stipulation to Extend Class Discovery and to Extend Time to File
Opposition and Reply Briefs to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and set the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification for January 6, 2023.
On November 3, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order resetting the
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification from January
6, 2023, to January 27, 2023.
On December 28, 2022, the Court approved the Parties' Joint
Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Lincoln Benefit seeks to have its local counsel to participate in
the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Lincoln Benefit provides life insurance and annuity solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xJTHH5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tarifa B. Laddon, Esq.
Katherine Villanueva, Esq.
W. Glenn Merten, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 203-4000
E-mail: tarifa.laddon@faegredrinker.com
kate.villanueva@faegredrinker.com
glenn.merten@faegredrinker.com
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN BEECH, on behalf
of herself and the class members described below, v. THE LITIGATION
PRACTICE GROUP, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying three
classes, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
-- Class A consists of:
"all persons who, on or after March 17, 2017 (five years
prior to the filing of this action), entered into contracts
with the Defendant The Litigation Practice Group, PC
("LPG"), which contracts were not cancelled within three
business days, that provide for monthly payments before
services are fully performed."
-- Class B consists of:
"all persons who, on or after March 17, 2017, entered into
contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not
cancelled within three business days, and who were not
provided with the written statement described in 15 U.S.C.
section 1679c(a)."
-- Class C consists of:
"all persons who, on or after March 17, 2017, entered into
contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not
cancelled within three business days, and who were not
provided with both (a) a conspicuous statement in bold face
type, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for the
consumer's signature on the contract, which reads as
follows: "You may cancel this contract without penalty or
obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business
day after the date on which you signed the contract."
Residents of Georgia are excluded from the classes. The three
classes are largely coterminous. There are 67,001 class members
(70,498 throughout the United States minus 3,497 in Georgia).
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZslEPH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Graeber, Esq.
JASON GRAEBER LAW OFFICE
250 Beauvoir Road, Suite 4C
Biloxi, MS 39501
Telephone: (228) 207-7117
E-mail: jason@jasongraeberlaw.com
- and -
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-1824
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
LITTLER MENDELSON: Tex. App. Affirms Dismissal of New Tech's Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston,
affirms the dismissal the Appellant's claims in the lawsuit
captioned NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES, LLC, Appellant v. KERRY E.
NOTESTINE, CONOR H. KELLY, BRIAN HENTOSZ, AND TERRENCE MURPHY,
Appellees, Case No. 14-21-00121-CV (Tex. App.).
New Tech appeals the trial court's order dismissing its claims
against the Appellees, four Littler Mendelson P.C. lawyers, for
legal malpractice. The Littler Lawyers moved to dismiss the case
under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, TCPA.
New Tech complains that the trial court erred in granting the
motion, contending that (1) the TCPA's commercial-speech exemption
prevents application of the TCPA to its claims, (2) its claims
against each of the four lawyers fall outside the scope of the
TCPA, and (3) New Tech established by clear and specific evidence a
prima facie case for each essential element of its legal
malpractice claims. In connection with the latter issue, New Tech
also challenges the trial court's order sustaining the Littler
Lawyers' objections to statements and opinions of New Tech's
experts. New Tech also addresses the movants' statute of
limitations affirmative defense.
The case involves legal malpractice and related claims based on
alleged negligent lawyering during a prior litigation.
New Tech is a staffing company providing project management and
consulting services to independent oil and gas companies operating
drilling rigs. Dale Bercier, a drilling supervisor, who worked for
New Tech, sued New Tech in federal district court in Houston under
the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in 2017, alleging that New
Tech had failed to pay him proper wages for overtime work. Bercier
filed the lawsuit not only on his own behalf, but also purportedly
on behalf of a class of other similarly situated employees (the
Bercier Lawsuit).
New Tech and its general counsel, David O'Neil, had previously
retained Littler Mendelson to represent New Tech in other FLSA
lawsuits. Appellee Kerry Notestine, a partner in the Houston office
of Littler, was the originating attorney and main point of contact
for New Tech in the FLSA lawsuits.
As it had done since 2014, New Tech retained Littler to represent
it in the Bercier lawsuit. Appellee Terrence Murphy, a partner in
the Pittsburgh office with extensive experience handling FLSA
actions, served as lead counsel for New Tech in the lawsuit.
Appellee Brian Hentosz, an associate in the Pittsburgh office,
assisted Murphy. Murphy, as lead counsel, supervised Hentosz's
work.
Appellees Murphy and Hentosz negotiated with Bercier's counsel at
Kennedy Hodges over the terms of an agreed joint stipulation on
conditional class certification. After Bercier's lawyers proposed
that the class include all of New Tech's "current and former
consultants and/or supervisors," Murphy and Hentosz countered,
seeking to limit the class to include just New Tech's drilling
supervisors. Importantly, Bercier was a drilling supervisor and not
a completion supervisor. Bercier's counsel agreed to Hentosz's
proposed class definition, and the district court signed a
conditional class certification order that defined the class to
include all "drilling supervisors paid a day rate and classified as
independent contractors who performed services through Defendant at
any time from the date of mailing to the Present."
After the order was signed, Bercier's attorney asked Murphy and
Hentosz to produce documents identifying the names of all potential
class members. Instead of producing a list limited to New Tech's
drilling supervisors, Hentosz gave Kennedy Hodges a list that he
had received from David O'Neil's paralegal at New Tech before
negotiating the class definition with Bercier's counsel -- a list
that included New Tech's completions supervisors in addition to New
Tech's drilling supervisors.
When confronted by O'Neil about sending the expanded list of class
members, including drilling supervisors, Hentosz told O'Neil that
the strategy from the beginning was for the class to include both
drilling and completions supervisors. The Littler Lawyers maintain
that the disclosure was intentional. Notestine sent an email to
O'Neil summarizing Murphy's reasons in greater detail.
Unsatisfied with the explanation, New Tech fired the Littler
Lawyers and hired another lawyer, Annette Idalski, to represent
them in the Bercier lawsuit. Idalski asked the district court to
strike or sever the claims of the completions supervisors who had
opted to participate in Bercier's FLSA collective action, and filed
a motion to compel each of the plaintiffs to pursue individual
arbitrations of their respective FLSA claims.
New Tech filed its state court action for legal malpractice action
against the Appellees on May 26, 2020. The principal if not
exclusive factual basis for the lawsuit is Hentosz's disclosure to
Bercier's lawyers of the names of New Tech's completions
supervisors.
The Littler Lawyers filed their TCPA Motion to Dismiss on July 1,
2020. The Parties engaged in discovery, including multiple
depositions, and New Tech filed a response to the TCPA motion,
amended its pleadings and supplemented its arguments and evidence
in response to the TCPA several times. New Tech attached several
declarations of various witnesses to support its response to the
TCPA motion, including the declaration of Annette Idalski, who
provided expert testimony to support elements of its legal
malpractice claim. The Littler Lawyers objected to many statements
in Idalski's declaration, and after the trial court heard the
parties' arguments on the objections, signed an order sustaining
many of New Tech's objections.
After a hearing, the trial court granted the TCPA motion and
dismissed New Tech's claim for legal malpractice on Oct. 5, 2020.
After New Tech nonsuited its remaining claims against the Littler
Lawyers and the trial court entered an order granting attorneys'
fees, the trial court entered a final judgment on Feb. 24, 2021.
On appeal, New Tech raises four issues: whether the commercial
speech exception applies, whether its legal malpractice claims fall
within the scope of the TCPA, whether New Tech established by clear
and specific evidence a prima facie case for each of the essential
elements of its legal malpractice claim, and whether the Littler
Lawyers established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on
their statute of limitation defense.
Judge Randy Wilson, writing for the Panel, notes that the Court of
Appeals only addressed the first three. The Appellees request that
this Court not affirm on the basis of its statute of limitations
defense; their reasoning, in part, is based on an acknowledgement
that "the trial court is unlikely to have based its dismissal on
the statute of limitations defense." The Court of Appeals agrees
with the parties; the case lends itself to a straightforward
application of the tolling rule applicable to malpractice cases,
such that the statute of limitations would not bar New Tech's legal
malpractice claims.
The first issue is: "Would the commercial-speech exemption operate
to preclude application of the TCPA with respect to New Tech's
malpractice claims?"
The Court of Appeals concludes the trial court's implicit rejection
of the commercial speech exception was proper. The Court of Appeals
overrules New Tech's first issue.
The first issue is: "Do New Tech's claims fall within the scope of
the TCPA? (Did the Littler Lawyers establish that New Tech's legal
action is based on or in response to their exercise of the right to
free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association?)"
Judge Wilson finds that the Littler Lawyers carried their initial
burden of demonstrating that New Tech's malpractice claims against
each of them were based on the exercise of their right to petition
and, thus, fell within the scope of the TCPA. The Court of Appeals,
therefore, overrules New Tech's second issue.
The third issue is: "Did New Tech establish by clear and specific
evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of its legal
malpractice claim against each of the Littler Lawyers?"
New Tech challenges the trial court's implicit finding that New
Tech failed to show by clear and specific evidence a prima facie
case for each essential element of its legal malpractice claim
against each of the Littler Lawyers.
In summary, Judge Wilson holds that the causation alleged of the
litigation is flawed, as New Tech is seeking recovery of litigation
costs of claims based solely on the manner in which claimants were
notified, without reference to the viability of the claim. The
substance of New Tech's argument is that they incurred damages
defending claims in a particular lawsuit.
Even if New Tech sufficiently alleged that it would not have
incurred hypothetical damages in the Bercier lawsuit, Judge Wilson
finds it provided no allegation as to why New Tech would never
incur litigation costs for an FLSA claim against those same
completion supervisors. Upon this record, the Court of Appeals
overrules the Appellant's third issue.
Because New Tech's malpractice claims were not exempt by the
commercial speech exception, fell within the scope of the TCPA, and
yet New Tech failed to demonstrate a prima facie element of
causation or damages, the Court of Appeals affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 9,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dcwfe9v from
Leagle.com.
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and
RUTH PEREZ, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC. and CNTP MCB, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05157-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L.
Rochon entered an order of reference to Magistrate Judge Willis:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement)
-- Inquest After Default/Damages Hearing
-- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and
Recommendation).
Manhattan CryoBank is a tissue bank with a range of capillary
donors who have undergone thorough screening.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kqr6Ub at no extra charge.[CC]
MATERNAL & FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Adkins Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TATIANA ADKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v MATERNAL & FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00334-MEM (M.D., Pa. Feb. 24, 2023) is
an action alleging the Defendant's failure to prevent medical data
breach.
According to the complaint, on August 21, 2021, the Defendant's
patients' sensitive personal and medical data was compromised when
unauthorized actors were able to successfully launch a ransomware
attack, which resulted a breach of the Defendant's network and
access files containing the Plaintiff and the Class's personal
identifying information.
The Defendant failed to take sufficient and reasonable measures to
safeguard its data systems and protect highly sensitive data in
order to prevent the Data Breach from occurring, alleges the suit.
MATERNAL AND FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (MFHS) operates as a
non-profit organization. The Organization offers reproductive
health, cancer screening, pregnancy care, and breastfeeding support
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N.Monroe St.,
Media, PA
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera ,Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. La Salle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Barton v. Mattel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 22, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Barton Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41nMY36 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Cuddy RPNS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 13,
2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Cuddy Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41mkYgn at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Drover-Mundy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy et al v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-GWC (W.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. Defendants placed a value of $30
on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Drover-Mundy Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IQPWGe at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Hanson RPNS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01087 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16,
2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Hanson Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kiDtlp at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Kimmel RPNS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 29, 2019),
the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Kimmel Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YTreuo at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mesa v. Enloe Medical
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mesa, et al., v. Enloe
Medical Center, Case No. 3:21-cv-01872 (D.S.C., Filed June 17,
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 Mesa 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/3SnRN8H at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mitchell v. Blackbaud
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 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 Mitchell 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/3YU8ScH at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mortensen v. Blackbaud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mortensen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04042 (D.S.C., Filed Nov. 20, 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 Mortensen 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/3kiNCye at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Peterson v. Allina
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peterson v. Allina Health
System et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00989 (D.S.C., Filed Apr. 2, 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 Peterson 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/3EuuQLm at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Roth v. Blackbaud
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roth, et al., v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00053 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 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 Roth 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/3YWqHrQ at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3055: Seirafi Case Transferred to District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Seirafi, et al., v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-05176 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Sept. 10, 2022) is transferred to the District of New Jersey by MDL
Panel (MDL 3055).
The Seirafi 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/3ISLOpa at no extra charge.[CC]
METROPOLITAN LIFE: McHugh Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA MCHUGH, CHARLES
PATRICK MCHUGH, JOHN ELLSWORTH, and all others similarly situated,
v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-06152-SB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class;
2. naming Plaintiffs as Class representatives;
3. appointing Robert R. Duncan of Duncan Law Group, LLC,
Thomas C. Cronin of Cronin Co., Ltd., and James H. Podolny
of Duncan Law Group, LLC, as Class counsel; and
4. providing any other relief that is just.
Metropolitan operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZmmU6H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
James Podolny, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 North Clark St, Suite 2550
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 202-3283
Facsimile: (312) 202-3284
Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
jp@duncanlawgroup.com
- and -
Thomas C. Cronin, Esq.
CRONIN & CO., LTD.
120 LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 500-2100
E-mail: tcc@cronincoltd.com
- and -
Steven Mikuzis, Esq.
MAG MILE LAW, LLC
535 North Michigan Ave., Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: 708-576-1624
E-mail: steven@magmilelaw.com
- and -
Matthew P. Kelly, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.
KELLY
4652 Glenalbyn Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Telephone: (310) 483-3608
E-mail: mpk@matthewpkellylaw.com
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Rezendes Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss claims in the lawsuit titled JESSE REZENDES, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
22-CV-10211-AK (D. Mass.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought against an
automobile manufacturer, alleging various forms of impropriety with
respect to a classwide defect in the hoods of 2022 Mitsubishi
Outlander vehicles. Mr. Rezendes asserts six causes of action, on
behalf of both himself and a putative class of Outlander owners and
lessees, against the manufacturer, Mitsubishi Motors North America,
Inc. Mitsubishi has moved to dismiss all six causes of action for
failure to state a claim.
The 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander is a compact crossover SUV marketed,
sold, warranted, and serviced by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi began
selling this model in February 2021 and has since sold thousands of
units. The 2022 Outlanders suffer from a classwide "Hood Defect,"
which causes the vehicles' hoods to flutter and bounce when driving
at various speeds, in windy conditions, or over bumps. The hoods
flutter and bounce more violently as the vehicle speed increases.
The Hood Defect poses a potential to distract drivers from other
vehicles and pedestrians by causing them to be concerned that their
vehicle's hood is about to become unlatched and open. The Hood
Defect may also cause sun rays to reflect off the hood and into the
driver's line of sight, inhibiting the driver's ability to observe
surrounding vehicles and pedestrians; cause further structural
damage to the hood itself; and impair vehicular aerodynamics and
fuel economy.
Allegedly, Mitsubishi became aware of the Hood Defect prior to the
first sales of the 2022 Outlanders in February 2021. The sources of
Mitsubishi's awareness of the Hood Defect may have included
pre-production testing, pre-production design failure mode and
analysis data, early consumer complaints made to dealers and to
Mitsubishi itself, aggregate warranty data, testing conducted in
response to consumer complaints, and repair order and parts data
received through Mitsubishi's network of dealers.
Mitsubishi has issued bulletins to its dealerships concerning the
Hood Defect. In March 2021, Mitsubishi issued a Technical Service
Bulletin ("TSB"), No. TSB-21-42A-001, that applied to all 2022
Outlanders sold in the United States. Additionally, this TSB stated
that if "an affected vehicle is reported with the described
condition," a dealer should "diagnose the condition, repair as
described in this bulletin and submit a normal warranty claim" to
Mitsubishi.
On April 16, 2022, Mitsubishi issued a notice to all its service
and parts managers entitled "2022 Outlander Hood Flutter Adjustment
Special Customer Satisfaction Campaign." This notice directed
dealers to use a procedure "to install countermeasure
weather-strips to resolve a hood flutter" on "all 2022 Outlander
vehicles" excluding "ES Models," and stated that one set of parts
would be automatically shipped to dealers for each vehicle
currently in inventory and for each vehicle anticipated to be
received in April 2021.
On April 23, 2021, Mitsubishi issued a revision to TSB-21-42A-001,
entitled TSB-21-42A-001REV. The stated purpose of this bulletin was
"to provide a clean point for Hood Latch Adjustments." The revised
bulletin indicated that hood flutter may occur only on certain 2022
Outlanders produced prior to March 25, 2021. On June 3, 2021,
Mitsubishi issued TSB-21-42A-001REV2, a second revision to this
bulletin that contained the same operative language as
TSB-21-42A-001REV.
On June 22, 2021, Mitsubishi issued TSB-21-42A-005, entitled "Hood
Flutter," which advised dealers that all 2022 Outlanders produced
prior to May 12, 2021, may suffer from the Hood Defect. This
bulletin advised that weather-strips with internal padding had been
incorporated into production as of May 2021 "to minimize the hood
flutter." It instructed dealers to perform hood repairs "on a
customer complaint basis only." Mitsubishi continued to issue TSB's
regarding the Hood Defect through at least January 2022. Further,
customers filed a number of complaints with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration regarding the Hood Defect in 2021 and
2022.
Mr. Rezendes is a Massachusetts resident, who purchased a 2022
Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle in June 2021. Mr. Rezendes purchased
his Outlander from Central Mitsubishi ("Central"), a licensed
Mitsubishi dealer in Raynham, Massachusetts.
Within weeks of purchase, Mr. Rezendes' Outlander began to exhibit
the Hood Defect, causing the hood of the vehicle to flutter and
bounce when driven at highway speeds or in windy conditions.
In July 2021, the month following his purchase, Mr. Rezendes
complained to Central about the Hood Defect. Central told Mr.
Rezendes there was no repair available to correct the Hood Defect
and did not attempt any repair. In November 2021, when the
Outlander's odometer read 6,400 miles, Mr. Rezendes again
complained to Central about the Hood Defect. Central, in accordance
with Mitsubishi's Technical Services Bulletins, attempted a repair
by adjusting the hood latch and replacing all three hood
weather-strip seals. The Outlander continued to suffer from the
Hood Defect after this attempted repair.
In February 2022, counsel for Mr. Rezendes sent a demand letter to
Mitsubishi advising the company that Mr. Rezendes' Outlander
suffered from the Hood Defect and had not been repaired, despite
Mr. Rezendes providing the dealership with multiple opportunities
to do so. Mr. Rezendes made a third complaint about the Hood Defect
to Central in April 2022, and Central advised him that there were
no repairs or replacement hoods at the time, but that it was
waiting for Mitsubishi to issue a recall regarding the Hood
Defect.
Mr. Rezendes initiated the lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2022, by filing a
putative class action complaint against Mitsubishi. He timely
amended his complaint on June 8, 2022. Mitsubishi timely moved to
dismiss all 6 counts in the complaint.
Mr. Rezendes brings six claims against Mitsubishi, each on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers and lessees of the 2022
Mitsubishi Outlander. Count 1, the jurisdiction-conferring count,
alleges a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301. Count 2 alleges common-law fraudulent concealment.
Count 3 alleges common-law unjust enrichment. Counts 4 and 5 are
Massachusetts statutory claims for breach of express warranties and
of implied warranty of merchantability, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 106
Section 2-314. Count 6 is a claim under the Massachusetts consumer
protection statute, Chapter 93A, that rests on allegations of
fraudulent concealment of material information.
Although Mr. Rezendes describes Count 2 as a claim of "fraudulent
concealment," the Court construes it as a claim of fraud by
omission, as the former is not a recognized cause of action under
Massachusetts law.
Following Costa v. FCA US LLC, 542 F.Supp.3d 83 (D. Mass. 2021),
Judge Kelley finds that Mr. Rezendes has likewise failed to state a
claim for fraud by omission. His complaint contains no specific
allegations concerning his reasons for choosing to purchase 2022
Outlander, any particular statements he may have relied upon from
Mitsubishi in forming his opinion of the 2022 Outlander, or any
particular exchange he had with Central surrounding his vehicle
purchase.
Because the complaint does not adequately plead the essential
element of a duty to disclose, the Court need not address the
question of whether it pleads concealment of material information.
Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss Count 2 will be
granted.
Mr. Rezendes brings parallel state and federal claims for breach of
warranty. Because the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA")
incorporates the requirements of a state law cause of action, Judge
Kelley notes that Massachusetts law sets the elements each of
Counts 1 and 5.
Judge Kelley finds that Mr. Rezendes has adequately alleged a
plausible breach of express warranty claim. The complaint alleges
that his vehicle was covered by Mitsubishi's New Vehicle Limited
Warranty, which promised that the vehicle was "free from defects in
materials or workmanship at the time of delivery" and committed
Mitsubishi to repair or replace any such defect that appeared
"during the first 5 years or 60,000 odometer miles, whichever
occurs first." Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss Count 5
will be denied.
Because Mr. Rezendes had adequately pleaded the elements of a
Massachusetts claim for breach of express warranty, Judge Kelley
opines that he has adequately pleaded a cause of action under the
MMWA. However, the MMWA imposes additional jurisdictional
requirements on plaintiffs, who seek to assert their claims in
federal court. These jurisdictional requirements do not apply to
plaintiffs, who assert MMWA claims in state court.
Mr. Rezendes assuredly meets the $25 requirement with respect to
his individual claim. Likewise, he fails to meet the requirement
that his class claim identify at least 100 named plaintiffs, Judge
Kelley says.
Mr. Rezendes' class-based MMWA claim is dismissed, without
prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Kelley
holds. His individual MMWA claim meets a related barrier: the
statute's requirement of a $50,000 total amount in controversy.
Because the complaint is unclear as to whether Mr. Rezendes'
individual claim amounts to $50,000, the Court must dismiss this
claim without prejudice, as well. Mr. Rezendes will be granted
leave to replead his individual MMWA claim, class MMWA claim, or
both, in either state or federal court.
Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss Count 1 will be
granted.
Mr. Rezendes alleges that Mitsubishi violated Chapter 93A, the
Massachusetts consumer protection statute, through its failure to
disclose the Hood Defect to purchasers and lessees of the 2022
Outlander.
By pleading a plausible breach of express warranty claim, Mr.
Rezendes has pleaded a plausible claim for relief under Chapter
93A, Judge Kelley holds. As Mr. Rezendes has adequately alleged
that Mitsubishi failed to fulfill its obligations arising under the
New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Judge Kelley finds he has
successfully alleged a violation of Chapter 93A.
Judge Kelley also holds that Mr. Rezendes' Chapter 93A claim based
on concealment of the Hood Defect is barred by Iannacchino v. Ford
Motor Company, 888 N.E.2d 879 (Mass. 2008). Neither his complaint
nor his brief in opposition to this motion identifies any "legally
required standard," that the 2022 Outlander fails to meet because
its hoods are defective. Accordingly, he may not pursue a "claim of
economic injury based on overpayment" for the vehicle, and may
recover under Chapter 93A only for personal injury or property
damage he has suffered as a result of the Hood Defect. With no
actionable allegation of personal injury or property damage, Mr.
Rezendes' concealment-based Chapter 93A claim falls squarely among
those proscribed by Iannacchino's holding.
Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss Count 6 will be denied
insofar as Mr. Rezendes seeks to prosecute a Chapter 93A violation
related to the alleged breach of warranty, but Mr. Rezendes is
precluded from pursuing a Chapter 93A claim on his concealment
theory.
Judge Kelley finds that Mr. Rezendes has adequately alleged a claim
for unjust enrichment. Here, Mitsubishi does not contest that Mr.
Rezendes has adequately stated allegations sufficient to meet these
elements. Rather, it relies on the principle that the unjust
enrichment action is available only where no contract covers the
subject of the parties' dispute.
As Mr. Rezendes notes in his opposition to this motion, discovery
may plausibly establish that he has no contractual remedy available
to him. He is, thus, permitted to pursue discovery on both his
contract claim (Count 5) and his unjust enrichment claim (Count 3),
even though it is unlikely he will be able to recover on both
claims, Judge Kelley explains. Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to
dismiss Count 3 will be denied.
Finally, the Court will dismiss Count 4. Like a Chapter 93A claim,
an implied warranty claim requires the plaintiff to plead an actual
loss or injury. Such is the case here, as Mr. Rezendes asserts the
same facts in support of his implied warranty claim that he did
with respect to his concealment claim under Chapter 93A. And here,
as there, Mr. Rezendes does not plead any injury as the result of
the defect other than economic loss.
Judge Kelley holds that Mr. Rezendes may seek to recover in
contract for his economic losses on Count 5, the express warranty
claim. Accordingly, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss Count 4 will be
granted.
For these reasons, Mitsubishi's motion to dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part. Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice.
Counts 2 and 4 are dismissed with prejudice. Mitsubishi will file
its answer regarding the remaining claims within 14 days of entry
of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 9,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3yrzdxwk from
Leagle.com.
MR. GRADE "A" INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cano Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN CANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MR. GRADE "A", INC.; IRWIN MINTZ; OWEN
MINTZ; and WYN MINTZ, Defendants, Case No. 603122/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau Cty., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Cano was employed by the Defendants as driver.
MR. GRADE "A", INC. is a freight shipping Trucking Company from NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 E. Main Street
PO Box 710
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
Email: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
MUSTANG FUEL: Scheduling Order in Wake Energy Class Suit Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAKE ENERGY, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. MUSTANG FUEL
CORPORATION, and MUSTANG GAS PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-00364-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla), the Hon. Judge Gerald L. Jackson
entered a scheduling order to govern the parties' actions in thi
case until a ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification:
1. Joinder of additional parties or March 17, 2023
amendments to pleadings:
2. Fact discovery for class November 17, 2023
certification purposes shall
be completed by:
3. The Plaintiff's expert reports December 21, 2023
in support of class certification
due:
4. The Defendant's expert reports January 26, 2024
in opposition to class
certification due:
5. Expert depositions to be February 29, 2024
completed by:
6. The Plaintiff's deadline to March 29, 2024
file class certification motion
and briefing:
Mustang Fuel provides gas and oil exploration and production
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YVmVyF at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN SWEENEY et al., v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending their time to file their Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until
March 23, 2023.
The Defendants' current deadline to respond is February 21, 2023.
The parties have consulted regarding the requested extension and
Plaintiffs consent to the requested extension. Among other things,
the extension is necessary to allow Defendants to depose
Plaintiffs' class representatives on a schedule jointly agreed to
by the parties.
The Defendants include Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Investment Committee of the
Nationwide Savings Plan, David Berson, David LaPaul, Kevin O'Brien,
Klaus Diem, Michael Mahaffey, and Michael P. Leach.
Nationwide Mutual is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial
services companies based in Columbus, Ohio.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sx9NNW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS LLP
280 North High Street, Suite 1300
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-4100
Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
lipps@carpenterlipps.com
- and -
Alexandra L. Schill, Esq.
Dustin M. Koenig, Esq.
Jordan M. Baumann, Esq.
Evan Miller, Esq.
David T. Raimer, Esq.
JONES DAY
325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-3939
E-mail: aschill@jonesday.com
dkoenig@jonesday.com
jbaumann@jonesday.com
emiller@jonesday.com
dtraimer@jonesday.com
NAVA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAVA CONSTRUCTION, LLC, aka NAVA
CONSTRUCTION, aka NAVA PROPERTIES, LLC; DELLA PELLO PAVING, INC.;
ADNARY AMARAL NAVA; and DEVANIL ANIL NAVA, JR., Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01017 (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as concrete
laborer.
NAVA CONSTRUCTION, LLC is engaged in the construction business in
New Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
NEW YORK, NY: Gray Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gray, et al., v. City Of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06610 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 5,
2021), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kyhPJR at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Payne Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Payne et al v. De Blasio
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08924 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41q3AYe at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Rolon Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rolon v., et al., v. CITY
OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02548 (S.D.N.Y., Filed March
24, 2021), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as
follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y3F0JC at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Sierra Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sierra, et al., v. CITY OF
NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10291 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 7,
2020), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IVW3t2 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Wood Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wood v. People of the
State of New York v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00322 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y2GFPG at no extra charge.[CC]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bodnar Sues Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA BODNAR; TERRY MANLEY; JOSEPH SAMEK; and SAMEK AUTOMOTIVE
REPAIR, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; and NORFOLK
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00380-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 24, 2023) alleges that the Plaintiffs and the
Class were adversely affected by the February 3, 2023 train
derailment and the resulting toxic chemical explosion.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the chemicals Norfolk
Southern discharged into the air, water, and soil of East
Palestine, Ohio, and the surrounding communities include the known
carcinogen vinyl chloride and numerous chemicals that cause
vomiting and skin, nose, eye, and respiratory tract injuries and
irritation.
As a result of the train derailment on February 3, 2023, the
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, among other things, loss of
use and enjoyment of property, property damage, loss of property
value, emotional distress, and economic damages, says the suit.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION provides rail transportation services.
The Company transports raw materials, intermediate products, and
finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and,
via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
Roger Denton, Esq.
Stephen D. Behnke, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
865 South Dixie Drive
Vandalia, OH 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com
NOVO BUILDING: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vogt Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VOGT, TERON
MANUEL, JAMES COSBY and DEVIN ELDER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, NOVO
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and THE EMPIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01998-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon A. King
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. Pretrial factual discovery will expire July 21, 2023
on:
2. All affirmative expert reports on Sept. 29, 2023
class certification and merits-based
expert reports and disclosures:
3. Depositions of proposed class Nov. 30,2023
certification and merits based
expert witnesses be concluded
by:
4. Class certification motions shall Sept. 15, 2023
be filed with the Clerk Court no
later than:
Novo is A manufacturer and distributor of stair parts, mouldings,
doors, and specialty millwork.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41rwqaz at no extra charge.[CC]
OBI SEAFOODS: Court Tosses Paunovic Bid for Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN
PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J.
Pechman entered an order denying the motion for summary judgment.
The Court finds that a dispute of fact precludes finding as a
matter of law that OBI was the legal employer of the Icicle
workers in 2020. But the Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Quarantine Class should
include the Icicle workers starting in June 1, 2020.
The Court therefore approves the Class Notice in the form appended
to this Order and Plaintiffs may commence to distribute notice. The
clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
The Court is also unconvinced that the named Plaintiffs' claims
would be atypical relative to those of the Icicle workers. The
evidence presented -- particularly from the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent
and the Answer -- is that all leased workers were subject to the
same quarantine rules and procedures.
The Plaintiffs' claims are thus typical of all leased workers'
claims, regardless of whether the workers were at Icicle or Ocean
Beauty plants in 2020.
The Court finds that the inclusion of the Icicle workers in the
Quarantine Class and Class Notice is consistent with the evidence
presented and the Court's Order on Class Certification.
OBI is a leading producer of fresh, frozen and canned wild Alaska
seafood.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m4Qwr9 at no extra charge.[CC]
PAYSIGN INC: District of Nevada Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the lawsuit entitled IN RE PAYSIGN, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.).
Pending before the Court is Defendants Paysign, Inc., Mark R.
Newcomer, Mark Attinger, and Daniel Spence's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs Johann Francisconi, et al., filed a Response, to which
the Defendants filed a Reply.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative securities class action against
Paysign and certain of its directors and executive officers, on
behalf of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Paysign's securities between March 12, 2019, and March 31, 2020.
They claim that during the Class Period, the Defendants made
several misleading statements and omissions concerning employing a
suspended accountant and making changes to Paysign's software
systems that caused inaccurate balances to client accounts.
The parties provide a detailed review of the facts alleged in the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") and
the background information and procedural history of this case in
their briefing for the instant Motion.
Relevant to the Court's analysis, however, the Plaintiffs allege
the Defendants engaged in three acts of misconduct: (1) the
Defendants employed a suspended accountant, Arthur De Joya, despite
an SEC cease-and-desist order prohibiting De Joya from practicing
as an accountant; (2) Defendant Spence, Paysign's Chief Technology
Officer, made software changes to Paysign's internal system that
created discrepancies, which caused inaccurate balances to
customers' accounts; and (3) Defendants Newcomer and Spence engaged
in insider trading when they sold portions of their total stock
holdings in Paysign while stock prices were artificially inflated.
The Plaintiffs then allege that the Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting this misconduct in
Paysign's SEC filings.
During the Class Period, on March 16, 2020, Paysign announced
delaying filing their 2019 annual report because of deficiencies in
its internal controls over financial reporting and information
technology general controls. As a result, Paysign's stock declined
17% from the previous day's closing price.
On the last day of the Class Period, Paysign announced delaying
their earnings results. Paysign's stock then declined 22% from the
previous day's closing price. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
Newcomer, Attinger, and Spence knew of these internal control
deficiencies and the harm these deficiencies would cause.
Defendants Newcomer and Spence purportedly exploited this knowledge
and sold stock they held in Paysign while the stock price was
artificially inflated.
The Plaintiffs include the accounts of six confidential witnesses
("CWs") that held positions in Paysign to support these
allegations. As a result of these events, and after
similarly-situated Plaintiffs filed analogous allegations against
the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed the CAC. The Defendants now
move for dismissal.
The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action: (1) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated
Thereunder against all Defendants; and (2) violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against Defendants Newcomer, Attinger,
and Spence (the "Individual Defendants").
The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead scienter.
The Defendants further argue that because the Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim for a predicate primary violation of Section 10(b)
against any Defendant, the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim
necessarily fails.
Judge Navarro finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege the
prominent roles the Individual Defendants played in Paysign's
corporate structure. They also allege that the Individual
Defendants knew of or recklessly disregarded that Paysign employed
a suspended accountant, who engaged in acts prohibited by an SEC
order.
The Plaintiffs supplement the CWs' statements with other specific
allegations. They claim that through Paysign's 2019 10-K Annual
Report, Defendants admitted they employed De Joya and allowed him
to work on Paysign's financial statements, violating the SEC's
order.
The Plaintiffs then contend that despite knowing De Joya helped
prepare Paysign's financial statements in contravention of the
SEC's cease-and-desist order, the Defendants repeatedly certified
that Paysign's internal controls were effective. Given their
purported knowledge that De Joya was helping prepare Paysign's
financial statements despite the SEC order prohibiting it, the
Plaintiffs' allegations allow the Court to adequately infer
scienter as to Defendants Newcomer and Attinger. Accordingly, the
Court denies dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim
against Defendants Newcomer and Attinger.
Next, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant Spence made changes to
Paysign's software systems that led to inaccurate balances to
customers' accounts. CW2, Paysign's Corporate Trainer and Customer
Services Representative from October 2018 to September 2019,
corroborates this by stating that "Defendant Spence regularly made
programming changes to the Company's internal system that stored
customer account profiles without providing other employees with
notice that he had done so." CW2 further states that these changes
caused customers' account balances to materially differ from the
actual balances on their accounts.
CW2 goes on to say that this information was widely known at
Paysign and that Paysign's Chief Operating Officer, Joan Herman,
knew this and informed the Defendant Newcomer about it. However,
Judge Navarro opines, unlike the allegations against Defendants
Newcomer and Attinger, the Plaintiffs do not include separate
allegations that supplement CW2's statements. As such, the
Plaintiffs' allegations do not allow the Court to adequately infer
scienter as to Defendant Spence. Accordingly, the Court grants
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim as to Defendant
Spence with leave to amend.
Regarding Defendants Newcomer and Attinger, the Court held that the
Plaintiffs adequately plead scienter, which was the Defendants'
only attack on the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. Thus, the
Defendants' failure to develop their attack on the Plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) violation necessarily leads the Court to deny
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim as to Defendants
Newcomer and Attinger.
But because the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter as
to Defendant Spence, the Plaintiffs' claim under Section 20(a)
against Defendant Spence cannot survive the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss.
If the Court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, leave to amend should be granted unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment, Judge
Navarro notes. Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs may be
able to plead additional facts to support their first and second
causes of action.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint. The Court, however, cautions that an amended
complaint must plead particular facts that give rise to a strong
inference of scienter regarding Defendant Spence. The Plaintiffs
will file their amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of
the date of this Order if they can allege sufficient facts that
plausibly establish the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
claims as to Defendant Spence. Failure to file an amended complaint
by this date shall result in the Court dismissing these claims with
prejudice.
If the Plaintiffs seek to amend claims dismissed without prejudice,
Judge Navarro holds that the Plaintiffs must file an amended
complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 9, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44hh6nr8 from Leagle.com.
PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Collective Cert Order Entered in Carman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK CARMAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PORTSMOUTH
REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00313-AWA-RJK
(E.D. va.), the Hon. Judge Arenda Wright Allen entered a consent
order regarding collective certification and notice to collective
action members.
1. The Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 21, 2022. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff sought to represent himself and all
persons employed by Defendant as Security Officers in the
last three years.
2. The Parties have conferred regarding the Complaint and the
collective action allegations.
3. The parties have agreed to stipulate to conditional
certification of the following collectives pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
("FLSA"):
a. All Security Officers who worked over 40 hours in any
week while classified as independent contractors
between June 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022.
b. All Security Officers who worked over 40 hours in any
week while classified as salaried employees between
February 1, 2022 and July 21, 2022.
c. The Parties have conferred regarding the composition of
the proposed collectives and agree that they consist of
approximately individuals, not including Plaintiff.
4. The parties stipulate that the members of the proposed
collectives are similarly situated solely for the purposes
of conditional certification of this collective action.
5. The FLSA's collective action device allows one or more
employees to bring an action for overtime compensation on
"behalf of himself or themselves and other employees
similarly situated."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Su8xLy at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Krista Sheets, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan Childers North
Jonathan W. Gonzalez
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
5425 Discovery Park Boulevard Suite 200
Williamsburg, VA 23188
Telephone: (757) 903-0870
Facsimile: (757) 401-6770
E-mail: snorth@grsm.com
jwgonzalez@grsm.com
PROVIDENT BANCORP: Rosen Law Continues to Probe Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Provident Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ:PVBC) resulting
from allegations that Provident may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Provident securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10252 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 15, 2022, Provident filed a Form NT
10-Q Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2022. The Form NT 10-Q stated the delay
was due to "estimates that [Provident] will report net loss of
approximately $27.5 million for the quarter ended September 30,
2022, compared to net income of $5.1 million for the quarter ended
September 30, 2021."
On this news, Provident's stock price fell $2.20, or over 21%, to
close on November 16, 2022 at $7.90 on unusually high trading
volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.[GN]
RAISING CANE'S: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Bid OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAYA RODRIGUEZ, an
individual and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. RAISING
CANE'S USA, L.L.C., a California limited liability company; RAISING
CANE'S RESTAURANTS, L.L.C., a California limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08296-JFW-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order:
-- granting stipulation to continue plaintiff's class
certification motion filing deadline and stay discovery
pending mediation; and
-- vacating hearing date on Plaintiff's motion for order
remanding action to state court.
Accordingly, the hearing calendared for February 13, 2023 is
vacated and the matter taken off calendar. After the parties advise
the Court of the results of the mediation, the Court will set a new
hearing date. The Court will not entertain any motions until after
completion of the scheduled mediation.
On February 7, 2023, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Continue
Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline and Stay
Discovery Pending Mediation, requesting that the Court continue
Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for class certification
until 120 days after the mediation and to stay discovery until
after mediation" in order to preserve the Parties' time and
resources."
Raising Cane's operates a chain of restaurants in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQkFNg at no extra charge.[CC]
RELIANT PRO: Initial Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA ANDERSON and TARA
NUNALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RELIANT PRO REHAB LLC d/b/a RELIANT REHAB, Case No.
1:22-cv-00599-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena M.
Barch-Kuchta entered a preliminary case management and scheduling
order as follows:
Action or Event Date
Deadline to move to join a party Mar. 31,2023
or amend pleadings.
Deadline to complete class Nov. 9, 2023
certification discovery.
Deadline to File Class Jan. 3, 2024
Certification Motion.
Deadline to File Opposition Mar. 4, 2024
for Class Certification.
Deadline to File Reply for Apr. 18,2024
Class Certification.
Class Certification Hearing Deadline. May 2,2024
Reliant provides rehabilitation services to alcoholics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDCWBv at no extra charge.[CC]
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Conditional Class Cert Granted in Vickers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAITLYN VICKERS, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. REVELETTE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00967 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion and stipulation for conditional class certification
and notice to putative collective action members; and joint motion
to extend deadline to file answer and to reset initial case
management conference.
-- The following class of individuals is conditionally
certified in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All current and former Tipped Employees of the Defendants
at their Jonathan's Grille and / or The Rutledge restaurant
locations at any time since December 1, 2019."
-- The Notice and Consent Form are approved for distribution
to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and shall be used to opt
into this action.
-- The Defendants shall, within 21 days of the date this Order
is entered, provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel
spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing
address(es), last known email address(es), last known
telephone number(s), dates of employments, and location(s)
of employment for each current or former employee ("Class
List").
-- Within 14 days of receiving the notice list from the
Defendants, the Plaintiff's counsel, or a third-party
designated by Plaintiff's counsel, shall distribute, via
U.S. Mail e-mail, and Short Message Service (SMS) / text
message, the Court-authorized Notice.
-- The Plaintiff's counsel shall use their best efforts to
mail and e-mail all Notices initially on the same day so as
to establish a single date of mailing. Plaintiff's counsel
shall bear all costs associated with distributing the
Notice and accompanying material in this manner but shall
be entitled to petition the Court for a recovery of such
costs.
-- Within two business days of distributing the Notice via
U.S. Mail and e-mail, the Plaintiff shall file with the
Court a certification that the Notice has been sent
consistent with this Order identifying the date of mailing,
attaching the final version of the Notice sent by U.S.
Mail, e-mail, and Short Message Service (SMS) with all
dates inserted.
-- All Consent Forms shall be postmarked or electronically
submitted no later than 45 days from the date of mailing
and e-mailing of the Notice. Timely consent forms shall be
deemed "filed" on the postmarked date or date received by
the Plaintiff's counsel electronically.
-- Approximately half-way through the 45-day notice period,
the Plaintiff's counsel shall distribute, via U.S. Mail and
e-mail, the Court-authorized Notice to any individuals who
fall within the group defined above Order from whom
the Plaintiff's counsel have not received a completed
Consent Form.
-- The Defendants shall file their responsive pleading(s) to
the Collective Action Complaint within 14 days following
the close of the Notice period. The Defendants retain all
defenses, including all objections to a three (3) year
statute of limitations and the right to seek
decertification.
The Defendants include REVELETTE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN
No. 3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE – HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- SPRING HILL,
LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE –
PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE – EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE -- CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE RESTAURANT, LLC, THE
RUTLEDGE -- FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE, LLC, MASON REVELETTE, and
CURTIS REVELETTE.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SwIuTQ at no extra charge.[CC]
ROLLINS INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Rollins, Inc. ROL resulting from allegations that
Rollins may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Rollins securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2735 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 28, 2020, Rollins disclosed that a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation had
been initiated and believed the SEC's focus to be how accruals and
reserves were established at period ends and their impact on
reported earnings going as far back as January 2015.
Then on February 26, 2021, Rollins announced that an internal
investigation into the same matters found "a significant deficiency
in the Company's internal controls relating to the documentation
and review of accounting entries for certain reserves and
accruals." On this news, Rollins share prices fell $0.87, or 2.5%,
to close at $33.17 per share on February 26, 2021, damaging
investors.
Then on April 18, 2022, the SEC announced that Rollins agreed to
pay $8 million to settle the charges that Rollins made unsupported
reductions to its accounting reserves to improperly boost its
earnings per share. On this news, Rollins share price fell $0.55,
or approximately 1.7%, to close at $34.29 on April 18, 2022,
damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ROMEO POWER: Plaintiffs Seeks Class Status in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Romeo Power Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of:
"persons or entities who purchased the securities of Romeo
Power, Inc. referred to as "Romeo" or the "Company" between
October 5, 2020 and August 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby."
To invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the Plaintiffs must
show that the Company's stock traded in an efficient market. A
presumption of efficiency arises where, as here, the Company's
stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange, which the Supreme
Court in Basic described as a "well-developed, efficient, and
information-hungry market."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ktVddo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
SAINT LOUIS, MO: Court Won't Amend Case Mgmt. Order in Faulk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL FAULK, Plaintiff v. CITY OF SAINT
LOUIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00308-MTS (E.D. Mo.),
Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, rules that the Court will
not amend the case management order yet again.
The matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court
directed the Plaintiff to file an update on the action, including
how the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
in Street v. O'Toole, 4:19-cv-02590-CDP (E.D. Mo.), might affect
the action. The Plaintiff did so.
As the Plaintiff noted, Judge Catherine D. Perry since has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in Street. The Plaintiff has
not received formal notice of the settlement and, at this time,
intends to continue litigating this action, as is his right.
The Plaintiff, though, foretells of a "need" to amend the current
Amended Case Management Order. The parties have been litigating
this case in this Court for a total of about forty-five months. The
Plaintiffs filed this action just shy of five years ago, and it was
on appeal before the Court of Appeals for about fifteen months.
Once the action was back before this Court, the Court entered a new
Case Management Order. By request and agreement of the parties,
this Court amended that Case Management Order in September 2022,
extending its deadlines.
The Court does not foresee a likely scenario where the parties
sufficiently can demonstrate good cause to amend the case
management order yet again.
The Court expects the parties to cooperate in good faith on
discovery, especially in scheduling depositions--the occurrence of
which the Defendants did not oppose.
Judge Schelp points out that any issues surrounding discovery that
the parties cannot resolve themselves must be raised with the Court
in a diligent and timely manner. Before moving for an Order
relating to discovery, however, the movant must request a
conference with the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 9, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4c9tv6z3 from Leagle.com.
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Barbat Sues Over Invasion of Privacy Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BARBAT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SHARP HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00330-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2023) alleges violation
of the California's Invasion of Privacy Act and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant committed
invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty, suffered as a
result of the Defendant's disclosure of confidential health care
information and other personal information to Meta Platforms Inc.,
formerly known as Facebook, Inc. through the incorporation of the
Meta Pixel, a hidden advertising tool on Sharp's webpages.
SHARP HEALTHCARE operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers physical rehabilitation, pregnancy, weight
loss, mental health, orthopedics, cancer, and vascular care
services. Sharp HealthCare serves communities in the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Ste 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
STREAMLABS LLC: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZARA LEVENTHAL, v.
STREAMLABS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case-management and pretrial order as
follows:
Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure
Deadline/Hearing Date
Updated joint case-management- Jun. 15, 2023
conference statement
Further case-management conference Jun. 22, 2023
Class Certification Hearing Dec. 15, 2023
Opposition to Class Certification Feb. 16, 2024
Reply to Class Certification Mar. 22, 2024
Last hearing date for dispositive Oct. 31, 2024
motions and/or further case
management conference
Meet and confer re pretrial filings Nov. 5, 2024
Streamlabs is a streaming platform for Twitch, YouTube & Facebook.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IxHNVF at no extra charge.[CC]
SUTTER HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Sargony Complaint Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargony, et al. v. Sutter
Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order denying
defendant's motion to dismiss and granting defendant's motion to
strike.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as participants
of the Sutter Health 403(b) Savings Plan on behalf of the Plan and
a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Sutter Health who are members
of the RBIC or other fiduciaries of the plan, breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").
This case concerns the Defendants' management of the Sutter Health
403(b) Savings Plan, a retirement plan for Sutter Health employees.
The Plaintiffs are former or current employees of Sutter Health who
previously participated or currently participate in the Plan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IQ4LYD at no extra charge.[CC]
TARGET CORPORATION: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN LOCKLIN, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-07936-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
-- Final Pretrial Conference: January 25, 2024
-- Last day to file dispositive October 13, 2023
motions:
-- Last day to be heard: December 5, 2023
-- Fact Discovery Cut-Off: March 24, 2023
-- Last day for Plaintiff to June 9, 2023
file motion for class
certification:
-- Last day for Defendant to June 30, 2023
file opposition to motion for
class certification:
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is the eighth largest retailer in the
United States, and a component of the S&P 500 Index. The company is
one of the largest American-owned private employers in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3StAeUC at no extra charge.[CC]
TGINESIS LLC: Adewol Sues Over Mislabeled Vitamin Products
----------------------------------------------------------
OLUWAKEMI ADEWOL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TGINESIS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00509-GLR (D. Md., Feb. 24, 2023) is an action arising from
the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to
its marketing and sale of its vitamin products.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the
representations made on the Products' labels which lead reasonable
consumers to believe that the Products are "natural," they are not.
Reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff, interpret "natural"
to mean that the product does not include synthetic ingredients.
Despite this representation, the Products are not natural because
they include multiple synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the
Products contain synthetic ingredients known as Red No. 40 and
Citric Acid. Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the
Products if they had known about the misrepresentations or would
have purchased them on different terms, says the suit.
TGINESIS LLC manufactures and sells vitamin products in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
THRIVE MARKET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ringler Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADINA RINGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRIVE MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01266 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited calls.
THRIVE MARKET, INC. provides e-commerce services. The Company
offers pantry staples, supplements, cleaning powder, meat and sea
food, beauty products, wine and other items. Thrive Market serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
TJAR GROUP CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MANUEL RAMOS ACOSTA; JOSE DANIEL PADILLA ALONZO; and ERIK
JOSUE RUIZ MUNGUIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TJAR GROUP CORP.; and WANG LAM
a/k/a RICHARD LAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01416 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as carpenter.
TJAR GROUP CORP. is a construction company specializing in general
contracting. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
UNION PACIFIC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Grigg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's motion to compel in the lawsuit captioned
CHARLIE GRIGG and CHARLES WALDSCHMIDT, Plaintiffs v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD CO., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:21CV3124, 8:22CV210 (D.
Neb.).
Judge Bataillon says the motion is more properly construed as a
motion for partial summary judgment on a question of law.
The Plaintiffs in these consolidated putative class action cases
allege that Defendant Union Pacific Railroad ("U.P." or "the
Raiload") discriminates against hearing-impaired employees through
its hearing-exam and hearing-protection rules. They assert
disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended.
The cases evolved from a class-action lawsuit that was decertified
by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Harris v. Union Pac. R.R.
Co., 953 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2020)). In that case, the
plaintiffs broadly challenged Union Pacific's alleged policy of
sidelining disabled employees through fitness-for-duty
evaluations.
In Harris, the Court certified a class of all employees subject to
a fitness-for-duty evaluation because of a reportable health event
from Sept. 18, 2014, until the resolution of the action. Plaintiff
Grigg was a class member in Harris and after remand, Plaintiff
Waldschmidt's substantively identical case was transferred to this
District from the District of Colorado and later consolidated with
this Grigg's case.
In decertifying the class, the Eighth Circuit essentially found
that the class therein--covering over 650 separate jobs and all
U.P. employees, who were subjected to fitness-for-duty evaluations
for numerous medical conditions--was too broad in scope to meet
Rule 23's predominance and cohesiveness requirements. The Eighth
Circuit acknowledged, however, that a more narrowly targeted class
with a specific type of disability and a smaller number of jobs
could be appropriate for class certification. This case presents
one such example.
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that U.P has
adopted overbroad hearing-exam and hearing-protection policies that
systematically put hearing-impaired employees at a disadvantage as
compared to non-hearing-impaired workers.
The Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and the
following class of similarly situated employees:
Individuals who took and passed the FRA's hearing acuity
test with or without hearing aids and who nevertheless were
the subjects of one or more adverse actions by Union Pacific
because of their hearing acuity test results at any point
between the commencement of Union Pacific's
hearing-protection and hearing-acuity policies and the
resolution of this action.
The Plaintiffs also allege exhaustion of administrative remedies
under the ADA. In its answer, U.P. generally denies the Plaintiffs'
allegations, but acknowledges that it has the challenged policies
in place.
In the discovery request at issue, the Plaintiffs seek discovery of
information about potential class members before April 2017. In
response, U.P. produced some data on potential class members, but
it limited the production to a subset of potential class members
whose ADA claims may have accrued on or after Jan. 24, 2018, and
class members whose Rehabilitation Act claims accrued on or after
June 2017.
For discovery purposes, U.P. has agreed to provide information back
to June 2017. U.P. argues that any claims of potential class
members that predate June 2017 are barred by statutes of limitation
and cannot be revived, and thus, information concerning those
potential claims need not be produced.
In their motion to compel, the Plaintiffs seek a determination of
whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to extend the
class periods in this putative class-action. They contend that
U.P.'s challenged hearing exam policies and practices date back to
2014, if not earlier. They also contend that, even if the rule does
not apply, the Railroad must still produce discovery concerning how
its hearing policies affected employees before April 2017.
The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class, and have alleged
class-wide discriminatory conduct. They allege a longstanding and
ongoing policy of discrimination against employees with hearing
impairments.
The Court finds the continuing-violation doctrine generally applies
to the Plaintiffs' pattern or practice or disparate impact claims.
In the absence of precedent to the contrary, the Eighth Circuit
caselaw that predates Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536
U.S. 101, 115 n.9 (2002) remains valid in this Circuit allowing the
Plaintiffs to rely on the continuing-violation exception to the
statutes of limitation for their pattern-or-practice claims. Judge
Bataillon holds the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a continuing
violation.
At this juncture, the Court finds only that information as to class
members that predates 2017 is discoverable. The Court need not
decide at this time whether Union employees, who allegedly
experienced discrimination before June 2017, can be class-members.
Despite the age of the case, this action is in its early stages. No
class has yet been certified. The determination as to any
individual relief for class members will also be made at a later
stage of the proceeding.
Whether or not any hearing-impaired employees may be members of the
class or may recover damages for individual claims based on
discrimination they experienced before June 2017, Judge Bataillon
holds that the information dating to 2014 (when the policy at issue
was allegedly implemented) is relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims
for injunctive relief and other issues such as motive, intent or
punitive damages and is discoverable.
Judge Bataillon points out that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
discovery about how these policies affected employees before 2017
to adequately build their disparate impact/pattern or practice
case. Also, information predating the limitations period may be
admissible to prove that the Railroad discriminated against its
employees during the limitation period.
Judge Bataillon, therefore, rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel, construed as a motion for partial summary judgment, is
granted in part and denied in part as premature as set forth in
this order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 9,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/dh5mxjhy from
Leagle.com.
UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLIE GRIGG, and CHARLES
WALDSCHMIDT, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No.
8:22-cv-00210-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
plaintiff's motion to compel, construed as a motion for partial
summary judgment, as premature.
Here, the plaintiffs purport to represent a class, and have alleged
class-wide discriminatory conduct. They allege a longstanding and
ongoing policy of discrimination against employees with hearing
impairments.
The Court finds the continuing-violation doctrine generally applies
to the plaintiffs' pattern or practice or disparate impact claims.
In the absence of precedent to the contrary, the Eighth Circuit
case law that predates Morgan remains valid in this Circuit,
allowing the plaintiffs to rely on the continuing-violation
exception to the statutes of limitation for their
pattern-or-practice claims.
Union Pacific operates North America's premier railroad franchise,
covering 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZnVYnl at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Over-Length Opposition to Class Cert Bid Tossed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order denying
motion to file over-length opposition to class certification
motion.
United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y9n54d at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: VP Finalist Alleges Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keila Szpaller at dailymontanan.com reports that a woman and recent
top candidate for a vice president position at the University of
Montana wants to join a possible class action case alleging gender
discrimination by UM and the Montana University System.
But the University of Montana said the woman has never even been
employed at the institution.
In 2021, four high ranking women sued UM and the MUS alleging
gender discrimination -- claims UM has strongly denied.
In a brief filed in U.S. District Court in Missoula, vice president
finalist Vandi Theriot alleges discrimination in the hiring
process.
Theriot would be one of 18 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which
alleges a hostile and retaliatory culture against women. The
plaintiffs' lawyers have identified as many as 76 women they
believe could be part of a class action case.
"Similar to the other plaintiffs, Ms. Theriot's claims are another
example of the significant discriminatory culture at UM and MUS,"
said the recent court filing.
UM and MUS have described the allegations as "baseless and without
merit," and they have said they look forward to "vigorously
defending our institutions in court."
This fall, federal District Judge Brian Morris denied class
certification for the lawsuit. He said the claims were too broad,
but he left the door open for the plaintiffs to try again if more
evidence comes to light.
In a brief filed, the plaintiffs request Theriot be added to the
lawsuit. The brief said her allegations did not occur until later
in January 2023, after the Jan. 6, 2023, deadline passed for
parties to join.
The court document outlines Theriot's complaints, and the brief
said the alleged discrimination took place as the current lawsuit
was already underway:
It said UM advertised a vice president for people and culture job
in fall 2022, and the campus offered a salary range of $155,000 to
$165,000.
"Upon information and belief, UM created this position in response
to the multiple claims of discrimination against it, including, but
not limited to, this lawsuit," the brief said.
It said Theriot applied for the job and was vetted for three
months, and she "excelled at every step."
"The UM search/hiring committee selected Ms. Theriot as the best
candidate," the brief said.
But the brief said UM President Seth Bodnar wanted to hire an
internal candidate instead, except the internal candidate was not
qualified. And it said he quizzed Theriot.
"President Bodnar repeatedly questioned Ms. Theriot's confidence in
her ability to fulfill the role of vice president for people and
culture. Ms Theriot was confident in her ability to be successful
in this position, as was the search/hiring committee," the brief
said.
After the search committee approved Theriot, Bodnar requested
additional references, "despite UM missing a scheduled meeting with
one of Ms. Theriot's original references," the brief said. It also
said Bodnar requested she talk with the Deputy Commissioner of
Human Resources at MUS.
Around Jan. 20, 2023, Bodnar offered Theriot the job with a
16-month contract and lowest listed salary, $155,000, the brief
said. It said the salary would be increased to $161,000 on July 1,
2023.
"Upon information and belief, UM's offer to Ms. Theriot would have
paid Ms. Theriot the lowest salary of its vice presidents," the
brief said.
However, UM denies Theriot ever received a formal job offer from
the university.
"Ms. Theriot has never worked at UM, nor has she ever been offered
a job by UM," said UM spokesperson Dave Kuntz in an email.
The brief said Bodnar told Theriot she would receive a "finalized
contract" on Jan. 27, 2023. It also said Theriot eventually backed
out of the process, and on Jan. 25, Bodnar told her UM would not
proceed with "its offer and agreement."
Leading up to the reversal, however, the brief said Bodnar had
explained a "new structure" would include a new position, an
associate vice president. It said he explained the internal
candidate -- who was not qualified for the vice president job --
would accept the associate job at a salary of $120,000.
"The associate vice president position description was not posted
for a public or internal candidate search; despite equal
opportunity, nondiscrimination, and affirmative action obligations
requiring the defendants to do so," the brief said.
It said the position didn't have a job description with minimum
requirements either, and Theriot raised related concerns to Bodnar.
However, he said "the optics of this decision were not a concern"
because the internal candidate had completed a rigorous review as
an applicant for the vice president job, the brief said.
"Throughout the hiring process, Ms. Theriot observed President
Bodnar focus on the optics of his decisions, rather than the
process, merits and content of the actions," the brief said.
The brief also said Bodnar requested Theriot work over the weekend
prior to reversing course with the offer, and she did so, but the
president treated her with "distrust and micromanagement."
The brief said Ms. Theriot is 50 years old and "not an obviously
athletic woman," and that defendants treated her differently than
the "young athletic" internal candidate.
"The defendants created a brick wall for Ms. Theriot's career," the
lawsuit said.
In an email, though, UM said it didn't decline to hire Theriot
based on her gender. It has denied any allegations of
discrimination in this lawsuit.
"UM denies that the decision to not hire her (Theriot) was based on
any protected class status. We remain confident that the claims in
this lawsuit lack merit," Kuntz said.
A Feb. 3 email from Bodnar to the campus shares his explanation of
the reversal as a change of course for leadership of the new
sector. It said UM planned to create a "People and Culture" sector
to ensure a "holistic approach" to supporting employees and shaping
culture at UM.
The email said UM launched a search for a vice president to lead
the sector, but then, it changed direction to tap internal
resources.
"Over the course of the last few months, we have learned that the
initial design and launch of this new sector is best led by a team
that already deeply understands UM and can efficiently and
effectively shape this new sector," Bodnar said. "So I have decided
that we will not hire a vice president at this time."
Instead, he said he would be "elevating the talent and expertise we
already have here at UM." He listed four employees he would work
with to execute "People and Culture" functions, including the new
associate vice president, and he said he believed that strategy
would have "the greatest impact on our people."
(The sector brings together Equal Opportunity/Title IX, Human
Resource Services, and the Office of Organizational Learning and
Development, the email said.)
"We will assess the need for executive leadership of the sector
over time," Bodnar said.
Filed, the brief said Theriot may pursue claims on her own but
prefers to join the group litigation.
(In the same brief, the plaintiffs seek to dismiss another
plaintiff from the case for health reasons.)
The plaintiffs have not yet filed another request for class
certification.
In a separate lawsuit, former UM head basketball coach Shannon
Schweyen also is suing the university alleging gender
discrimination. [GN]
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI ARELLANO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-02205-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney
entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:
This is a putative class action. On October 10, 2022, the plaintiff
filed the class action complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Shasta, claiming a violation of California
Labor Code section 226. The Plaintiff alleges that when defendant
paid overtime wages, the total hours worked were not accurately
listed, in violation of section 226(a)(2). The Plaintiff seeks all
applicable damages/penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant
to section 226(e).
-- The parties agreed to exchange initial disclosures no later
than February 6, 2023. If they have not already done so,
they shall do so forthwith.
-- The court hereby bifurcates the discovery process. All
discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are
relevant to whether this action should be certified as a
class action.
-- Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the last day to file
plaintiff's motion for class certification is November 6,
2023.
-- Further dates and deadlines will be set by a supplemental
pretrial scheduling order to be issued following resolution
of the motion for class certification.
-- Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be
filed within seven days.
-- Should the parties wish to conduct a settlement conference
with a magistrate judge, they are to contact the
undersigned's courtroom deputy clerk to inquire as to the
availability of another magistrate judge for a settlement
conference.
-- The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this order shall not be modified
except by leave of court upon a showing of "good cause."
USA Waste offers collection and disposal of refuse systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SqGdd3 at no extra charge.[CC]
VALLEJO, CA: Carroll v. Police Dep't. Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TREMAINE DEON CARROLL, Plaintiff v.
VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00004-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to
amend.
Plaintiff Tremaine Deon Carroll is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se with this civil right case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
On Jan. 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
action. On Jan. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity.
The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Central California
Women's Facility in Chowchilla, California, in the custody of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),
where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly
occurred. The Plaintiff names as defendants the Vallejo Police
Department, Mike Pallares (Warden), Greg Rodriguez, Sergeant
Contreras, and John/Jane Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring the civil action on behalf of herself,
Latasha Brown, and other sexual assault victims at CCWF. The
Plaintiff and Latasha Brown were both sexually assaulted by Warden
Mike Pallares, former Officer Rodriguez, Sergeant Contreras, and
others. Warden Pallares assigned ISU Sergeant Browne [not a
defendant] to head the investigation, but Sgt. Browne has also
sexually assaulted several inmates. Sgt. Browne is going around
threatening known victims and witnesses. CDCR's "Green Wall" and
Code of Silence has been activated.
According to the Order, Plaintiff Carroll is the only documented
victim, who has not been transferred out of CCWF for her
protection. However, Plaintiff Carroll is being tortured in CCWF
Ad-Seg and is currently on a hunger strike, afraid CCWF is keeping
her here to harm her. Latasha Brown was moved to CIW because she is
pregnant but won't say by what staff predator. The lives of the
Plaintiff and Brown are in imminent danger, so preliminary
injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order from CCWF and
CDCR are warranted for a case of this magnitude with media
coverage.
The Plaintiff requests as relief a temporary restraining order on
an "emergency" status under preliminary injunctive relief to
immediately get her out of CCWF and all victims out of CDCR
custody.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. She names herself (Tremaine Carroll), Latasha Brown,
and other sexual assault victims at CCWF as plaintiffs in this
case, alleging that she "brought this civil action" on behalf of
herself and others. However, Plaintiff Carroll is the only person,
who signed the original Complaint and the First Amended Complaint.
While a plaintiff may file a pro se action on her own behalf, a
plaintiff cannot represent other plaintiffs if filing pro se, Judge
Austin notes. The Plaintiff cannot assert claims on behalf of
others without attorney representation.
The caption in this case states that the Plaintiffs are Tremayne
Carroll, Latasha Brown and CCWF sexual assault victims. Judge
Austin says this raises two concerns. First, actions brought by
multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se present procedural
problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from
the transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions, the
changes in address that occur when inmates are released from
custody, and the difficulties faced by inmates, who attempt to
communicate with each other and with other incarcerated and/or
ununcarcerated individuals. Therefore, Judge Austin holds that this
action will not be allowed to proceed with multiple plaintiffs.
Second, to the extent the Plaintiff is seeking to attain Class
Certification, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs. Under
Rule 23(a), a party seeking class certification must demonstrate
prerequisites, such as numerosity, common questions of law and
fact, typicality and the ability of the named Plaintiff to protect
the interests of the class. In addition, under Rule 23(b), the
Plaintiff must demonstrate that she meets at least one of the
prerequisites regarding the risk of separate actions. The Plaintiff
has failed to do so here, Judge Austin holds.
Accordingly, as the complaint currently stands, the Court will only
consider the complaint to assert claims on behalf of Plaintiff
Carroll alone. If Latasha Brown or other sexual assault victims
wish to seek relief, they must either file their own civil actions
or demonstrate that they meet the rigorous requirements of Rule 23.
Nor may the Plaintiff unilaterally insert the claims of other
plaintiffs and piggyback them onto the Plaintiff's claims.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Warden
Mike Pallares, former Officer Rodriguez, Sergeant Contreras, and
others. These conclusory allegations, without more, are not
sufficient to state a claim against these individuals, Judge Austin
holds.
In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, the
Plaintiff must satisfy the "linkage requirement"--meaning that she
must link each individually named Defendant with some affirmative
act or omission that demonstrates a violation of her federal
rights, Judge Austin explains. Moreover, the Complaint must put
each Defendant on notice of the Plaintiff's claims against him or
her. Among other things, the Plaintiff must include specific facts
relating what exactly happened, who was involved, when and where
did the acts complained of happen, and who may have witnessed or
assisted in the acts complained of.
The Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to amend the complaint
to cure this deficiency, Judge Austin holds. Again, to state a
Section 1983 claim against a defendant, the Plaintiff must name the
Defendant individually and allege facts showing what that
individual Defendant did or failed to do. In addition, to state a
claim for a failure to protect, the Plaintiff must allege personal
acts by each Defendant showing how each Defendant knew that the
Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm yet nevertheless
acted unreasonably, causing the Plaintiff harm.
Judge Austin finds that to this point, the Plaintiff has not done
the above and, therefore, fails to state a claim against any of the
named Defendants.
The Plaintiff names the Vallejo Police Department as a defendant.
The Plaintiff's claims against the Vallejo Police Department likely
arise from events occurring in Solano County, California, where
Vallejo is located. If so, Judge Austin says venue for the
Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant are not proper in this
district, and thus, those claims may not be pursued in this
action.
By this Order, the Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file
a Second Amended Complaint in which she should omit any claims for
relief arising out of events occurring in Solano County. If the
Plaintiff wishes to pursue claims against the Vallejo Police
Department or any individual police officers arising in Solano
County, the Plaintiff may file a separate action in the Northern
District of California.
The Court provides legal standards for the claims that it appears
the Plaintiff seeks to bring. Judge Austin says the Plaintiff
should review the legal standards before deciding which claims to
bring in her Second Amended Complaint. The claims are: (A) Sexual
Assault -- Eighth Amendment Claim, (B) Retaliation -- First
Amendment Claim, and (C) Failure to Protect -- Eighth Amendment
Claim.
The Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel in this case. Judge
Austin holds that the Plaintiff does not have a constitutional
right to appointed counsel in this action, and the Court cannot
require an attorney to represent her pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(1). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court
may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to Section
1915(e)(1).
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel,
the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and
exceptional cases. In the present case, the Court does not find the
required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the Plaintiff's
motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied, without
prejudice, to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.
The Plaintiff names Doe defendants in this action. Unidentified, or
"John/Jane Doe" defendants must be named or otherwise identified
before service can go forward. The Plaintiff is advised that John
Doe or Jane Doe defendants cannot be served until she has
identified them as actual individuals and amended the complaint to
substitute names for the John Doe(s) or Jane Doe(s). For service to
be successful, the Marshal must be able to identify and locate the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint contains a verification
signed by her that states, "The above is true to my knowledge." The
First Amended Complaint, however, is not signed under penalty of
perjury. Its allegations, therefore, are not "evidence" on which
the Plaintiff can rely to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
Judge Austin holds.
The Plaintiff is advised that if/when she files the Second Amended
Complaint, she must sign and date it with a verification stating,
"I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief can
be granted under Section 1983 against any of the Defendants. The
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
within thirty days.
Judge Austin directs the Plaintiff to cure deficiencies in her
complaint, including statements as to what each named Defendant did
that led to the deprivation of her constitutional or other federal
rights.
The Plaintiff should note that although she has been given the
opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of adding new
defendants for unrelated issues. Also, she has not been granted
leave to allege facts about events that happened post Jan. 3, 2023,
the date the original Complaint was filed.
An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and it must
be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded
pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in
an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each
Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint
should be clearly and boldly titled "Second Amended Complaint,"
refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed
under penalty of perjury.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Austin ordered that:
1. the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on Jan. 18,
2023, is dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave
to amend;
2. the Clerk's Office will send the Plaintiff a civil rights
complaint form;
3. within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this
order, the Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint
curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
order;
4. the Plaintiff will caption the amended complaint Second
Amended Complaint and refer to the case number
1:23-cv-00004-GSA-PC;
5. the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is
denied, without prejudice; and
6. the Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order will
result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for
failure to comply with the Court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 9, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/37dkvz85 from Leagle.com.
VARSITY BRANDS: Jones, et al., Seek Certification of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA JONES, et al., v.
VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the case as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs propose the following Nationwide Damages Class under
Tennessee law and Rule 23(b)(3):
"All natural persons and entities in the United States that
indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or
affiliate, from December 10, 2016, until the continuing
Exclusionary Scheme alleged herein ends (the "Class Period")
for:
(a) registration fees associated with participation in
Varsity Cheer Competitions;
(b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; or
(c) registration fees for attendance at Varsity Cheer Camps."
The Plaintiffs further propose the following State Law Damages
Class under Rule 23(b)(3):
"All natural persons and entities in the United States that
indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or
affiliate, from December 10, 2016, until the continuing
Exclusionary Scheme alleged herein ends (the "Class Period")
for:
(a) registration fees associated with participation in
Varsity Cheer Competitions;
(b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; or
(c) registration fees for attendance at Varsity Cheer Camps,
in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin."
The Plaintiffs further propose the following Nationwide Injunctive
Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2):
"All natural persons and entities in the United States that
indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or
affiliate, from December 10, 2016, until the continuing
Exclusionary Scheme alleged herein ends (the "Class Period")
for:
(a) registration fees associated with participation in
Varsity Cheer Competitions;
(b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; or
(c) registration fees for attendance at Varsity Cheer Camps.
Varsity Brands is an American apparel company owned by Bain
Capital.
A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y4zxlO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Ronnie Seidel Spiegel, Esq.
David Seidel, Esq.
Kevin Rayhill, Esq.
Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
dseidel@saverilawfirm.com
ebuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Van Turner, Esq.
TURNER FEILD, PLLC
2650 ousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 2325
Memphis, TN 38118
Telephone: (901) 290-6610
Facsimile: (901) 290-6611
E-mail: vturner@turnerfeildlaw.com
- and -
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut, Suite 300
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: rick@paulllp.com
ashlea@paulllp.com
- and -
Jason S. Hartley
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson*
Daniel C. Hedlund*
Daniel J. Nordin*
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
VOLTA INC: Faces Belcher Suit Over Proposed Merger Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BELCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOLTA, INC., VINCENT T. CUBBAGE, KATHERINE
J. SAVITT, ELI AHETO, JOHN J. TOUGH, BONITA C. STEWART and MARTIN
LAUBER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01406 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21,
2023) is an action brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising in connection with the solicitation of public stockholders
of Volta to vote in favor of a merger transaction pursuant to which
Volta will merge into an affiliate of Shell USA, Inc., in exchange
for payment of $0.86 per share in cash by Shell to Volta
Stockholders.
According to the complaint, on February 8, 2023, the Defendants
authorized the filing of a false and misleading preliminary proxy
on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
violation of the Exchange Act, with the aim of soliciting Volta
Stockholders to vote for the Merger and certain related proposals.
The Proxy contains material misrepresentations, and material
omissions that render statements therein misleading, concerning the
compensation and potential conflicts of two of the Board's
financial advisors with respect to the Merger. These material
misrepresentations and omissions render the Proxy false and
misleading in violation of the Exchange Act, says the suit.
VOLTA, INC. provides electric vehicle charging solutions. The
Company offers EV charging solutions to property owners, as well as
power to the electric vehicle communities. Volta serves clients in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6588
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend MCERS 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 Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System consolidated class suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
On December 2, 2022, a purported class action and derivative
lawsuit (Monroe County Employees' Retirement System, Plumbers Local
Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund, and Davant Scarborough v. David
M. Zaslav, et al., Case No. 2022-1115-JTL) was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Monroe County Action"). The Monroe
County Action names certain of the Company's directors and
officers, Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership (collectively, "Advance/Newhouse"), and
AT&T as defendants. The Monroe County Action generally alleges that
former directors and officers of Discovery and Advance/Newhouse
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and
that AT&T aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The Monroe County Action seeks damages and other relief.
Also on December 2, 2022, a separate purported class action lawsuit
(Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v.
Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Case No. 2022-1114-JTL) was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Bricklayers Action"). The
complaint in the Bricklayers Action names Advance/Newhouse and
certain of the Company's current and former directors as defendants
and generally alleges that former directors of Discovery and
Advance/Newhouse breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger, and that Advance/Newhouse aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Bricklayers Action seeks
damages and other relief.
On January 11, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the Monroe County Action and the Bricklayers Action under the
caption In re Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated Case No. 2022-1114-JTL.
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.
WAYNE PROVISION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAYNE PROVISION CO, INC. DBA PREMIER MEATS;
and DOES 1-24, Defendants, Case No. 23STCVO306O (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 22, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Espinoza was employed by the Defendants as staff.
WAYNE PROVISION CO, INC, doing business as Premier Meat Company,
provides meat and other products. The Company offers beef, seafood,
poultry, pork, lamb, and other food products. Premier Meat Company
operates in the United States. [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
Email: nazo@koullaw.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
Email: sagahii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***